www.ditl.org

Can an EM weapon make people disapear without a trace? Is there any process know to science that can make that happen? Not to my knowledge.

If we at some point discover a process that can do this fine, until then we can say with certainty that phasers violate all the laws of physics that we're aware of.

Thorin wrote:There is no law of physics against it - just like FTL travel. It's currently theoretically impossible, but is subject to change. We just don't know enough.

This looks promising:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Captain Seafort wrote:Can an EM weapon make people disapear without a trace? Is there any process know to science that can make that happen? Not to my knowledge.

To be honest I think you're mixing up the point of a sci-fi with fantasy.
Sci-fi takes science, stretches it as far as possible, but never makes anything against a true law of physics. It may make theoretical impossibilities to possibilities - but there isn't a law of physics against it.
Fantasy takes science, and throws it out the window.
I've hypothesised before - a process that turns matter to neutrinos would work.

If we at some point discover a process that can do this fine, until then we can say with certainty that phasers violate all the laws of physics that we're aware of.

That's not true - you cannot say something is against a law of physics (maybe against our current understanding, or what is believed) - because we do not know it. Laws of physics do not change. That is the must fundamental law of fundemental laws. That is their very point - they are laws. To break them would make a fantasy. To stretch them makes sci-fi.

Phasers are violating our current understanding of any sort of EM radiation, any sort of particle beam, they make no sense - but they do not violate the laws of physics.

Tsukiyumi wrote:
This looks promising:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

I don't understand a word of it - but I already know that it's basically how the universe has expanded over the speed of light. A lot of people think that because the universe is some 15 billion years old, it can only have a radius of 15 billion light years - which is, of course, wrong. Space-time stretches, curves, expands, and contracts. No local things move faster than the speed of light. It's in various parts of special relativity, but I don't have a good enough knowledge to make any intelligent comment on it.

There is ample evidence that phasers are not boiling stuff into vapour... or at least that they are not JUST boiling stuff into vapour. A disintergration effect has even been directly referenced on screen by Kirk.

Star Trek throws the laws of physics out the window, and then tries to cover it with technobabble. The attempt in True Q to scram a fusion reactor using neutrinos being the worst example off the top of my head. I have no problem with thinking up solutions to given phenomena, but claiming that it sticks to the laws of physics is ludicrous - especially regarding FTL, given that everything we know about the universe says it's impossible.

Captain Seafort wrote:...especially regarding FTL, given that everything we know about the universe says it's impossible.

See above. It looks like it is now in the realm of "improbable, but possible"

Captain Seafort wrote:Star Trek throws the laws of physics out the window, and then tries to cover it with technobabble. The attempt in True Q to scram a fusion reactor using neutrinos being the worst example off the top of my head. I have no problem with thinking up solutions to given phenomena, but claiming that it sticks to the laws of physics is ludicrous - especially regarding FTL, given that everything we know about the universe says it's impossible.

I agree and don't. Within the show the technology doesn't break the laws of physics. But within the show the laws of physics are rather different than they are in the real world. The fun part is trying to work out the difference!

GrahamKennedy wrote:I agree and don't. Within the show the technology doesn't break the laws of physics. But within the show the laws of physics are rather different than they are in the real world. The fun part is trying to work out the difference!

Not everyone here has a physics degree, Graham.

Yeah some of us are stuck with a Jewellery trade diploma.

lol, so? We can all read, can't we?

There's a big part of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre ... rre_Metric
that is way over my head. I could learn it if I had the time and inclination, but for now, understanding the principles is the best I can do.

I'm a writer, not a mathematican.

Not everyone here has a physics degree, Graham.

Well...I've read The Physics of Star Trek....does that count?

lol, so? We can all read, can't we?

Well, for all we know, some people might just be using hired transcribers to make their posts... I won't point any fingers, but...

To be honest I think you're mixing up the point of a sci-fi with fantasy.
Sci-fi takes science, stretches it as far as possible, but never makes anything against a true law of physics. It may make theoretical impossibilities to possibilities - but there isn't a law of physics against it.
Fantasy takes science, and throws it out the window.

Uh, both of these completely ignore real world physics. Sci-fi is merely a show that takes place in the future or in space. There doesn't need to be anything actualy scientific about it.

Yes there does. They cant just have something happen and say its magic. They have to give some sort of reason to it.