Thanks for taking the time to point out that some Sci-Fi science isn't entirely and blatantly impossible. As to Star Trek's "impossible physics justified by indecipherable techno-jargon," well sure, once you have Heisenberg compensators you can do anything!

-Adam

I've been reading Michio Kaku's book "Physics of the Impossible" lately. I'd highly reccommend it. He divides all this far-out techno fantasy into Class I, II, and III impossibilities and, in a VERY approachable way, explains the science behind phasers, force fields, teleporters, time travel, etc. The fun thing about math and physics is that they allow for all kinds of things we simply don't have the technology to create. There's nothing (yet) to say we couldn't travel into the future, for instance, but getting there is another matter.

Dr. Weir of Event Horizonc must have gor his ideas from "A wrinkle in Time" by Madeleine L'Engle. She called it a tesseract but didn't explain how Meg's father did it.
c2thamax

Just so's ya know: Star Trek literally sidesteps the physical universe with warp drive. Warp nacelles create something called a subspace field which allows the ship to enter subspace and travel at the FTL speeds. Subspace is concurrent with and parallel to the physical universe. They also pay particular attention to the theory of relativity: "full impulse" power while in real space is limited to 0.25c to limit time dilation effect on the crew. I had no idea as a child and new Star Trek fan in the mid-Seventies that one day as an adult, I would have a wireless communication device that is eerily similar to the props they used, nor that I would have a computer that essentially has access to the cumulative knowledge, information, and history of our entire civilization... Go, JJ Abrams, "Star Trek" in theaters May 2009!!!!!!

This is one of the better posts I have come across, with particularly interesting points. One of these was that of the compresion/expansion of space in order to lessen the distance between two points in space. May I ask (and you, if you so desire, reply to) the question of why such would work? Is space just as is perceived from a non-scientific standpoint, and area wherein 'things' may exist? Or does it consist of something -spacetime?- that also governs the dimensions of material objects,which would thus render such a concept invalid? Essentially, is this theory only only given possibility through lack of knowledge of the nature of space, just as ones relying upon spacetime[if it's existance is unproven] alos would? Thankyou PRz

kachow peeps