[LMB] transporter wrongness OT:

Raymond Collins rcrcoll6 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 9 12:35:30 BST 2020


I think it's time to take a deep breath and back away from getting too much
emotionally entangled (there is a seriously and fascinating pun in that
statement) in Star Trek technology. Now I'm going to beam myself to bed.
Goodnight.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020, 11:27 PM Damien Sullivan <phoenix at mindstalk.net> wrote:

> >     On Monday, September 7, 2020, 08:42:25 PM EDT, Matthew George <
> matt.msg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Where do people get the idea that transporters kill you?  You might as
> well
>
> They get it from watching Star Trek.  McCoy complained about being taken
> apart into atoms or molecules back in the original series.  Other
> explanations have gone in for being converted to energy but either way
> you are being taken apart and reconstructed.  This has been canon
> through the whole franchise.  Both Memory Alpha and Wikipedia give it:
>
> 'The transporter was a subspace device capable of almost instantaneously
> transporting an object from one location to another, by using
> matter-energy conversion to transform matter into energy, then beaming
> it to or from a chamber where it is reconverted back into its original
> pattern. (TOS: "The Squire of Gothos", "The Savage Curtain")'
>
> > nyaa.  That's what they do.  They do not take you apart and put you back
> > together, although certain episodes do treat them that way.  Trek tech
>
> So they don't work a certain way even though the primary material says
> they do? Your intellectual chutzpah is breathtaking.
>
> You mention technical manuals in another email.  I'm looking at the TNG
> Technical Manual:
>
> "The molecular imaging scanners derive a realtime quantum-resolution
> pattern image of the transport subject while the primary energizing
> coils and the phase transition coils convert the subject into a
> subatomically debonded matter stream."
>
> > isn't sophisticated enough to do that, which is why replicators cannot
> make
> > living things, some foods taste slightly different when replicated, and
> > there are certain substances they're programmed not to attempt because
> they
> > become poisonous.
>
> It is quite sophisticated enough to do that, and has been from the
> beginning.  Replicators don't because they're specifically more limited
> (presumably cheaper):
>
> "Personnel transport is accomplished at quantum-level resolution using
> analog image data.  By contrast, food and hardware replication (which
> employs transporter technology) employs digital image data at the much
> more limited molecular-level resolution.  Because of this crucial
> limitation, replication of living things is not possible."
>
> The DS9 Technical Manual says of the Starfleet and Cardassian
> transporters "both achieve the same goal of breaking down matter and
> transmitting it to a remote site for reintegration."
>
>
> You are, once again, amazingly, flabbergastingly, wrong.
> --
> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to rcrcoll6 at gmail.com
> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
> http://lists.herald.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lois-bujold
>


More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list