Always don't get this part... after the transporter accident... - Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) Discussion

[–] strntz (12773) a year ago

Also, where do you stand on the long standing debate philosophical debate- do transporters clone/kill everyone on each transport cycle and are we all watching re-assembled facsimiles of everyone episode to episode?

In 1966, the transporter was described as transforming solid matter molecules into energy and then transported *that* energy to a remote place and reassembled them back into the (hopefully) original item/person. We are asked to believe that the molecules/atoms/sub atomic particles themselves are getting moved and reassembled.

Under some scrutiny decades later, it doesn't seem at all possible to do anything more than to scan an item and reprint a clone of it somewhere else, so that's where the debate about cloning comes from. But like Superman flying, we have to accept that something that appears to break the laws of physics is happening and that the transporter is not building facsimiles of everyone but actually transporting matter.

Going a bit further, the transporter (in Trek universe) *must* transport the actual matter of the object or person otherwise there'd be no transporter accidents at all. If it was just a copy/kill/clone procedure, the pattern would still be available if something went wrong. If the person materializing on the remote pad is injured or otherwise assembled poorly, the procedure could be aborted, the jumbled matter discarded, and another attempt made with the known pattern. There would also be no transporter "beam" - it would be a radio transmission.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9657) 2 months ago

This is the right answer, as far as I'm concerned. Well-said, strntz.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16301) 2 months ago

"*must* transport the actual matter of the object or person otherwise"

yes indeed, otherwise all those Red Shirts neednt have died, they could just restore them from the transporter "backup"

... like Cylons

reply

[–] strntz (12773) 2 months ago

otherwise all those Red Shirts neednt have died, they could just restore them from the transporter "backup"

LOL, excellent point!

Also, Dr. McCoy wouldn't be needed. Head cold? Transporter backup. Lose a limb? Transporter backup. Raging case of herpes? Transporter backup..

reply

[–] jk90us (8195) 2 months ago

> Also, Dr. McCoy wouldn't be needed. Head cold? Transporter backup. Lose a limb? Transporter backup. Raging case of herpes? Transporter backup.

Keep in mind that the back up would only have the person’s memories up to the point of their last transport.

So say you lose an arm three weeks after that, the back up copy won’t have those three weeks of memories.

But at least they’ll have an arm. 😊

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16301) a month ago

Kinda like real data backups (or save buttons). How frequently you do it is kinda crucial.

(as is testing the restore process works)

reply

[–] mikethemartian (6990) a year ago

As Geordi pointed out to Barclay it has been statistically proven that transporters are the safest way to travel.

reply

[–] xergan (1084) a year ago

I would be thinking so, if you could only do from Transport Platform to another and potentially only one by one. But it is shown that you can beam anywhere, so I never thought of it as a clone/kill. The Replicator basically transform mass during beaming, that's why it is always enclosed. That is my head canon.

reply

[–] Darren (1455) a year ago

That's one of the things that always sort of bothered me about the series. No one ever seemed to consider the enormous philosophical and spiritual implications of the device: that when you use the transporter, you are killed, and what emerges at the other end of the process is a transporter clone. Honestly, I think the idea would have presented enormous opportunity for dramatic storytelling.

As we all know, the transporter was a budgetary concession to the reality that the TV show simply couldn't afford to pay for the special effects shots that would have been needed, showing the Enterprise or one of its shuttlecraft landing on a planet's surface every episode. The transporter effect was very cheap by comparison.

I think in the context of the movie, and the transporter accident depicted, we're supposed to take McCoy's reluctance as both an affectionate homage to his dislike of transporters that we saw in the series, and as charmingly irrational for this milieu: that given how mature a technology transporters are by this period in the Star Trek universe, basically his reaction is supposed to be like it would be for us today, refusing to get on a plane because an earlier flight crashed. We know that accidents like that are anomalies, that flying is statistically the safest mode of travel, and if the engineers say they found and repaired the fault that caused that earlier crash, then the problem's fixed, now stop being a nervous Nelly and get aboard.

reply

[–] liscarkat (19395) a year ago

"...flying is statistically the safest mode of travel..."

Tell that to 200 helpless people who are about the hit the ground at 500 mph, who know that in a few seconds their bodies will be torn to pieces, crushed, burned, and the chunks scattered across the landscape.

reply

[–] Darren (1455) a year ago

That's why I said statistically. And it's simply irrefutable. Far fewer flyers die in crashes than people traveling by any other mode of transport -- both in absolute terms, and on a per-capita basis. As has so often been observed, the most dangerous part of your airplane trip is your drive to and from the airport. You are orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car crash than an airplane crash.

The key difference is, when you are killed in a car crash, you are just one person (and maybe one or two or three others who went out with you in the same accident) -- and moreover, you're just one of over a hundred thousand of such deaths each year -- whereas in a plane crash, you are in a headline-grabbing event that took out hundreds at once.

Yeah, accidents happen. Every person who ever died in a plane crash drew a really bad hand. The odds were actually in their favor, and they still lost. That's life. No one ever said it was fair.

reply

[–] ak47wong (638) a year ago

When you use the transporter, you are killed, and what emerges at the other end of the process is a transporter clone. Honestly, I think the idea would have presented enormous opportunity for dramatic storytelling.

Sounds like the key plot point in The Prestige.

reply

[–] JohnBraun604 (353) a year ago

Great answer! I agree with you, but I still find this moment not well thought out.

On killing/cloning... I think the Original Series addressed this, Plato's Stepchildren - Kirk says matter and energy are now interchangeable. Meaning there is no killing.

reply

[–] Darren (1455) 10 months ago

That's more of a handwave, not an explanation. And that doesn't mean it's correct. Star Trek is stuffed with many things that are contrary to reality. For example: not so much in TOS, but in TNG, Roddenberry had become unrealistically utopian in his views. The show sucked during its first two seasons because he forbade interpersonal conflict between any of the main characters -- he felt that humanity would have evolved beyond that by the 24th century. This is nonsense. Human nature hasn't changed for tens of thousands of years; that's not going to suddenly about face in a mere couple of centuries, and the idea that advanced technology and lack of resource scarcity will change it is equally nonsense -- that's called technological determinism, and it's founded on the idea that merely having enough makes you inherently good, or rather, leaves your inherent goodness uncorrupted and uncompromised by poverty and want. Well, if that's so, explain greedy, exploiting robber-barons, or third-world dictators, who are evil and oppressive, despite their vast wealth.

Roddenberry wasn't so unrealistic when he was working on TOS in the 60s. Personally, I've always suspected the change in his outlook was a result of spending the 70s and 80s attending conventions, and listening to legions of adoring fans telling him what an elightened visionary he was -- it simply went to his head. So the 24th century Federation is socialism that somehow works. This time. After hundreds of failed attempts in scores of different countries throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.

In fiction, you can dismiss certain things by virtue of a thing called writer's fiat. As I said, that's a handwave, not a reasonable argument.

reply

[–] Keelai (36087) a year ago

No, the transporter isn't killing and re-assembling anyone no more than your own body does.

The human body replaces its own cells regularly. Each human being sheds 330 billion cells which are replaced daily, equivalent to about 1 percent of all our cells. In 80-100 days, 30 trillion cells will have replenished—the equivalent of a new you.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-bodies-replace-billions-of-cells-every-day/

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4836) 2 months ago

That's not even close to being a valid analogy.

"In 80-100 days, 30 trillion cells will have replenished—the equivalent of a new you."

No, it's not. It's only the equivalent of the total number of cells a person has. Like the article says, the vast majority of those cells that are being replaced are from the blood and gut lining, and a human-sized quantity of blood and gut lining cells is not in any way the equivalent of a human.

"No, the transporter isn't killing"

Yes, it is. The transporter converts a person to energy, and converting matter to energy is the literal definition of annihilation:

an·ni·hi·la·tion
noun
Physics
the conversion of matter into energy

You can't get any deader than being annihilated. If there's an afterlife, that's where your soul/spirit/consciousness is headed at that point, and if there isn't, it's lights out for you, permanently, at that point. The person that materializes at the destination is a copy of you, and since he would have a copy of your memories, he would have a full sense of continuity, i.e., he wouldn't feel as though he just came into existence. But in reality he would only be, e.g., one minute old a minute after he materialized.

A device like that wouldn't even need to "transport" you in order to create a copy of you. All it would need is your pattern and enough energy, which is how it created two copies of Riker in one of the episodes of TNG. It works the same way as a Star Trek-universe "replicator," except it's able to materialize patterns remotely rather than just locally.

reply

[–] Keelai (36087) 2 months ago

"converting matter to energy"

But matter is literally energy:

"According to Einstein's theory of relativity, "matter is energy" - meaning that matter and energy are essentially the same thing, and can be converted from one form to the other, as described by the famous equation E=mc² where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light; essentially stating that mass is a form of concentrated energy and vice versa."

The transporter is just converting from mass to energy back to mass again. Bones used to complain about transporters scrambling his cells, not destroying them.

Also energy is never destroyed, therefore there is no annihilation.

Your body's DNA recreates you all over. For instance, if you have a mole on your face, the skin that replaces the skin you shed will recreate that mole.

There is a different rate like you wrote. Skin every 2-4 weeks. Liver 100-500 days. Stomach and intestines 5 days. Skeleton 10 years.

"Over time, cells age and become damaged, so your body's cells are constantly replicating, creating their own replacements."
If you can find a way for the cells to replicate a younger version, you'd stay young forever. Scientists are researching that now. Doctor in ST:TNG tried it and died as he de-aged.

Replicators reformulate energy into something else. Basically matter down to its subatomic level and then built into something else. It doesn't materialize from nothing.

Btw, I'm enjoying this debate with you. Very refreshing. People in politics can only reply with "libtard" instead of actual thought. Anyway, we may need to agree to disagree.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4836) 2 months ago

"But matter is literally energy"

No, it isn't. Matter can be converted to energy. You can only convert something to something else, by definition. You can't convert something to itself, obviously.

"and can be converted from one form to the other, as described by the famous equation E=mc²"

See above. Also, energy has no "identity." For example, if you burn wood, the heat energy from it is indistinguishable from the heat energy you get from burning coal or anything else, or indistinguishable from the heat energy from the friction of rubbing your hands together, and so on. There's no way to examine energy and determine what type of matter/source it came from.

"The transporter is just converting from mass to energy"

And when that mass is a person, that's as dead as you can possible get. It's like being at ground zero of a nuclear explosion, except, even then you might not be 100% annihilated like the transporter does to people.

"Bones used to complain about transporters scrambling his cells, not destroying them."

It doesn't matter what he said, especially since it was just hyperbole. We know that the transporter converts people to energy, which means there are no cells left to "scramble" because they've been annihilated.

"Also energy is never destroyed, therefore there is no annihilation."

I already gave you the definition of "annihilate." Here it is again:

an·ni·hi·la·tion
noun
Physics
the conversion of matter into energy

You've already said, "The transporter is just converting from mass to energy," which is annihilation, by definition.

"There is a different rate like you wrote. Skin every 2-4 weeks. Liver 100-500 days. Stomach and intestines 5 days. Skeleton 10 years."

Your entire skin is not recreated every 2-4 weeks. You can have cuts in the skin that can take that long just to heal, so the entirety of the skin can't be replaced that quickly. And 5 days to replace the stomach and intestines? That's isn't possible.

Note that neurons (a type of brain cell) don't normally regenerate, so no matter how many times the rest of our cells may get replaced, the cells which are key to defining who we actually are, don't get replaced. That's why brain damage (which includes damage from diseases like Alzheimers) can permanently turn someone into what is effective a different person. There was a guy in my town when I was a kid who was an honor student in high school and an excellent artist. Then he got into a car accident, and due to brain damage, he had the mentality of, say, a 10-year-old for the rest of his life. Your DNA/mole example is irrelevant when it comes to the type of cells that actually define who we are.

"Replicators reformulate energy into something else."

Exactly; "something else."

"Basically matter down to its subatomic level and then built into something else."

No, down to energy, i.e., the matter is annihilated.

"It doesn't materialize from nothing."

Who said it did? It materializes from energy. It's just a copy, which is why it was able to make two identical Rikers. If the energy they converted Riker to actually had an "identity" (it doesn't), it could only ever be converted to back to Riker, one Riker.

reply

[–] Keelai (36087) 2 months ago

"But matter is literally energy" - No, it isn't.

LOL! Do you really want to argue with Einstein's most famous equation E=mc2. Notice the = sign? That means matter is energy.

"You can't convert something to itself, obviously."

You can convert the same thing to a different state. Similar to water as a liquid vs water as steam vs water as ice. McCoy is temporarily in a different state (subatomically debonded matter stream) when being transported.

"no cells left to "scramble" because they've been annihilated."

Nope! Not according to my book "The Physics of Star Trek" which states that the transporter locks onto a person, then scans them, dematerializes them, holds them in the pattern buffer then transmits matter stream in an annular confinement beam to its destination. Both the person's atoms and bytes (information) are transported together therefore no annihilation.

A replicator is not a transporter. Different purposes.

The Riker clone is just bad writing, bad science and contradicts the official science in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. I tend to ignore the many contradictions and plotholes that litter the Trek universe. For instance, recently in Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Uhura stated she was born in Kenya. Nope, Uhura comes from United States of Africa. I'll ignore her Kenya comment since it's a recent contradiction and not canon. I suggest you do the same instead of taking every episode so literally. Different writers will contradict canon and make mistakes.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4836) 2 months ago

"LOL!"

Irony Alert

"Do you really want to argue with Einstein's most famous equation E=mc2. Notice the = sign? That means matter is energy."

Being an equal value in an equation is not necessarily "literally the same thing," and in this case it's definitely not "literally the same thing." It's very easy to prove that it's not "literally the same thing," not to mention blatantly obvious. Convert a load of lumber to energy. Can you now build a house with the lumber? Obviously not, because the lumber is gone. If it were "literally the same thing" then you could literally do all of the same things with it; there would be no differences whatsoever. There's a huge difference between matter and energy, obviously.

"You can convert the same thing to a different state."

And when you do that it is not "literally the same thing." Water is not literally the same thing as ice for example, which is why you can't swim in solid ice and you can't ice skate on water. And water vapor isn't "literally the same thing" as either one of them. And in the case of energy, it's not even a state of matter (instead, it's a property of matter), because it's not matter at all (it occupies no space), whereas, e.g., gas, liquid, and solid are all states of matter that are determined by temperature.

"McCoy is temporarily in a different state (subatomically debonded matter stream) when being transported."

Again, energy isn't a state of matter.

"Nope! Not according to my book "The Physics of Star Trek" which states that the transporter locks onto a person, then scans them, dematerializes them, holds them in the pattern buffer then transmits matter stream in an annular confinement beam to its destination. Both the person's atoms and bytes (information) are transported together therefore no annihilation."

A book isn't part of the TV series nor the movie that this particular subforum is for, and is therefore irrelevant. It's also contradictory, since you say the person is dematerialized, but also say that the person's atoms are still there. Atoms are matter, obviously, so if you dematerialize something, there is no matter left, which means no atoms. Furthermore, even if this statement from a book were relevant and didn't contradict itself, there would still be no cells left to "scramble." If you break apart a person down to his individual atoms, every cell has inherently been broken apart too. Just one typical human cell consists of around 100 trillion atoms.

There is an episode on the original TV series that says that the transporter converts matter to energy, which is the very definition of annihilation. I don't remember which episode right now, but I'll come across it soon enough.

Edit: This dialog is from The Squire of Gothos:

Trelane: "We, meaning I and others, have, to state the matter briefly, perfected a system by which matter can be transferred to energy and back to matter again."

Captain Kirk: "Like the transporter system aboard the Enterprise."

"A replicator is not a transporter. Different purposes."

This is a non sequitur, since it doesn't address, nor even follow from, anything I said. I never said that a replicator is a transporter. I said that the transporter works the same way as a replicator (i.e., energy/matter conversion) except the transporter is able to materialize patterns remotely rather than just locally.

"The Riker clone is just bad writing"

There was also the two Kirks and the two alien dogs created by the transporter in the TOS episode "The Enemy Within."

"and contradicts the official science in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual."

The only things that count with regard to the happenings in any work of fiction are things which are actually in the work of fiction.

"For instance, recently in Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Uhura stated she was born in Kenya. Nope, Uhura comes from United States of Africa."

And why do you think that Kenya wouldn't be a state within a future "United States of Africa"? The most logical/practical/straightforward way of turning Africa into a single country would be to convert the existing countries into states, united under a single federal government, in which case, Kenya would be one of the African states.

reply

[–] Keelai (36087) 2 months ago

"...lumber..."

Lumber would end up in its original state thanks to the transporter, therefore you would be able to build your house from it.

"E=MC2"

It's the same object in a different state. If you place a glass of water in the freezer turning it into ice, it's the same water in a different state. Your argument about a different water magically appearing doesn't hold water.

"energy isn't a state of matter "

Energy = matter in a different state. Atoms are made up of electrons, protons... aka energy.

"energy... occupies no space"

Yes, it does.

"Atoms are matter, obviously, so if you dematerialize something, there is no matter left, which means no atoms"

and

"transporter converts matter to energy, which is the very definition of annihilation"

Nope! You're wrong 2x. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

"Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual."

This official book is canon.

"The only things that count with regard to the happenings in any work of fiction are things which are actually in the work of fiction."

No. It's depends on what's canon. Also, the fiction changes or contradicts each other with different writers and shows. For instance, originally the doctor on the Enterprise under Pike was an elderly white man named Dr. Mark Piper, but now he's a young black man named M'benga.

Until recently, Uhura had no first name.

Also, United States of Africa was a country created from land given to African-Americans as part of reparations for slavery located within the Southern part of the U.S.. in the 1970-1980s Trek universe.

Kenya origin is extremely recent from the latest TV series Strange New Worlds. U.S. origin makes more sense since Uhura speaks English with an American accent instead of an African one and its progressive politics is consistent with Roddenberry.

Turning Africa into a country is backwards since ignorant people tend to believe that's what it is now. Also it's offensve there wouldn't be any African-Americans on the show.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4836) 2 months ago

"Lumber would end up in its original state thanks to the transporter, therefore you would be able to build your house from it."

That's a non sequitur and therefore dismissed. Build a house from the energy. If the lumber and energy were "literally the same thing" you could do that, but they aren't, so you can't.

"It's the same object in a different state."

Wrong. I already told you that energy is not a state of matter; it's a property of matter. If it were a state of matter it would be matter, and would therefore occupy space (it doesn't). And it's not the same object in any sense, because, as I've already said, energy has no "identity," i.e., there are zero characteristics of the original object retained in the energy. If you had the technology to convert it back into an object, you could convert it into any object that you have a pattern for.

"If you place a glass of water in the freezer turning it into ice, it's the same water in a different state."

That's because water and ice are different states of matter. Energy is not a state of matter (see above).

"Your argument about a different water magically appearing doesn't hold water."

Since I never made any such argument, this non sequitur of yours is dismissed as well.

"'energy... occupies no space' Yes, it does."

Is that a joke?

According to our current understanding of physics, energy does not take up space; it is the ability to do work and is not considered to have a physical volume like matter does.

Definition of energy:
Energy is a concept describing the capacity to do work, not a physical object with volume.

Relativity and mass-energy equivalence:
While energy can be related to mass through Einstein's famous equation (E=mc²), this doesn't mean energy itself occupies space.

"Energy = matter in a different state."

Wrong. Energy is not a state of matter. See above.

"Atoms are made up of electrons, protons... aka energy."

You have no idea what you're talking about. Electrons and protons are particles, i.e., they are matter. They are not energy.

"Nope! You're wrong 2x."

What are you talking about? I've already posted the physics definition of "annihilation" and it's exactly what I said. I said:

"The transporter converts matter to energy, which is the very definition of annihilation"

And the physics definition of "annihilation" is (for at least the third time):

an·ni·hi·la·tion
noun
Physics
the conversion of matter into energy

So no, I am not wrong. You're drastically wrong because you don't have a clue about what you're talking about, and you also, apparently, have a very poor capacity for learning, as indicated by me needing to post the definition of "annihilation" at least three times now.

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Obviously, and since I never said that energy could be created or destroyed, this is yet another non sequitur from you. Consider it dismissed out of hand.

"This official book is canon."

Irrelevant. This is about TMP (since this is the TMP message board) and by extension, the series that TMP was based on and was a continuation of (TOS). I did mention the two Rikers before (TNG), but I don't actually need that example, because TOS has an equivalent example (two Kirks created by the transporter in "The Enemy Within").

reply

[–] Keelai (36087) 2 months ago

You're off on multiple tangents which I'll ignore and stay with the actual topic.

No character routinely dies while using the transporter. Not
a single episode shows anyone protesting about using a transporter because they die during the process.

Furthermore, persons being transported remain conscious and aware throughout the entire process. No one blacks out or loses time. Numerous episodes show this.

Roddenberry's universe is utopian. He wouldn't casually kill-off Kirk and other characters during each transport. That makes zero sense.

The transporter is fiction. It works the way the Star Trek technical manuals say since they are canon. Nobody dies.

E=MC2
"On a basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa. We humans don't see them that way—how can a beam of light and a walnut, say, be different forms of the same thing?—but Nature does.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/lrk-hand-emc2expl.html

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4836) 2 months ago

"You're off on multiple tangents which I'll ignore and stay with the actual topic."

Since I haven't gone off on any tangents at all, let alone multiple ones (i.e., every one of my replies has directly addressed stuff that you wrote), this non sequitur of yours is dismissed as well.

"No character routinely dies while using the transporter."

The transporter converts people to energy (and I've already cited an episode of TOS which establishes that), which means it annihilates people by definition (the physics definition of "annihilation" that I've copy/pasted from a dictionary at least three times now). You can't get more dead than annihilation, as it's the most extreme level of destruction that's physically possible (total destruction isn't known to be possible, so annihilation is as far as you possibly can go). There is literally nothing left of a person who has been annihilated, because energy is not a physical "thing" (i.e., it's not matter of any kind; it occupies no space).

"Furthermore, persons being transported remain conscious and aware throughout the entire process. No one blacks out or loses time. Numerous episodes show this."

That's not possible given its established matter-to-energy functionality. You need brain cells, for starters, to remain conscious, and there are no cells nor any other type of matter in energy, obviously. So any episode that "shows this" is a contradiction of the established functionality of the transporter that can be dismissed out of hand.

"Roddenberry's universe is utopian. He wouldn't casually kill-off Kirk and other characters during each transport. That makes zero sense."

It only shows that he doesn't understand the inherent consequences of converting someone to energy (i.e., death), just as you don't.

"The transporter is fiction. It works the way the Star Trek technical manuals say since they are canon."

There are no "Star Trek technical manuals" on display for reading in TMP nor TOS.

"E=MC2
"On a basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing."

Except, they aren't interchangeable nor are they different forms of the same thing (energy is not a form of matter; matter occupies space and energy does not, therefore it can't be matter of any kind). Being interchangeable in an equation is not necessarily the same thing as being interchangeable, full stop. I've already proven they aren't intechangeable with the lumber example.

To illustrate how some things can be the same in at least one sense but drastically different in other senses, compare a $1 bill to 4 quarters. They have the same monetary value and are therefore interchangeable in that sense, but do they have the same dimensions? No. Do they have the same mass? No. Are they made from the same materials? No. Can you light the quarters on fire with a match? No. Can you make a metal washer from a $1 bill by drilling a hole in it? No. Are they interchangeable, full stop? Obviously not. For example, if you were to come across an all-original, e.g., Pac-Man arcade machine, you could play it 4 times if you had 4 quarters, but you couldn't play it even once if you only had a $1 bill, because it has no bill validator; it only has a coin mechanism.

So is a $1 bill "literally the same thing" as 4 quarters? Obviously not. Is matter "literally the same thing" as energy? Obviously not. The sense in which they are the same thing is utterly irrelevant to this point of contention. A living human is made of matter, and can only possibly be made of matter. A living human is not made of energy, and can not possibly be made of energy. Therefore, if you convert a living human to energy you no longer have said living human, obviously. If you then take energy and convert it to a copy of said living human, that's all it is: a copy, because there is nothing left of the original.

reply

[–] Keelai (36087) 2 months ago

Congratulations about being 100% wrong about everything you wrote.

"physics definition of "annihilation"

Your "annihilation" premise is completely wrong which makes the rest of your argument moot.

The transporters don't use 20th century annihilation. They use 23rd and 24th century "dematerialization/materialization" process using quantum resolution for safe lifeform transport. No one dies.

Your annihilation process would refer to subatomic particles colliding with its corresponding antiparticles to release enormous amounts of energy for a nuclear bomb or warp speed in the Trek universe. "Dilithium crystals are used in tactical warp drives to focus the energy from matter-antimatter reactions for power."

The warp engines and transporters use two entirely different technologies. Transporters are not creating fission for enormous gain in energy. Transporters are simply transporting using dematerialization/materialization process. Don't quit your day job!

You already lost the argument, but just for my fun...

"...no tangents..."
"$1 bill...4 quarters"

That's a tangent!

"no "Star Trek technical manuals" on display for reading in TMP nor TOS."

Irrelevant. Both are canon.
There's nothing stopping you from buying them. I owned the original and have the second.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Star_Fleet_Technical_Manual

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation_Technical_Manual

"... any episode that "shows this..."

Numerous TV shows and movies have showed it making ongoing conversation and awareness during transport to be routine and canon aka the norm. Again neither Bones, Barkley or anyone ever complains about dying during transport because it doesn't happen.

"living human is made of matter"

Yikes! You don't know 4th grade science. Everyone knows humans are made from atoms.

No reason to continue. Take your defeat with grace.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4836) 2 months ago

"Congratulations about being 100% wrong about everything you wrote."

Comical irony coming from the guy who said that energy occupies space (LOL!), and that electrons and protons are energy (LOL!). You're out of your depth here, simple fellow.

"Your "annihilation" premise is completely wrong which makes the rest of your argument moot."

Your mere gainsaying is dismissed.

"The transporters don't use 20th century annihilation."

I already established that they do use annihilation (with the quotation from The Squire of Gothos), so consider your false assertion dismissed. Also, you're contradicting yourself, since you already said:

The transporter is just converting from mass to energy back to mass again.

And since the physics definition of annihilation is...

an·ni·hi·la·tion
noun
Physics
the conversion of matter into energy

... you've already conceded that the transporter annihilates people.

"They use 23rd and 24th century "dematerialization/materialization" process using quantum resolution for safe lifeform transport."

"Dematerialize" means the same thing as "annihilate," as I've already pointed out.

"No one dies."

Wrong. Someone who has been annihilated is dead, obviously. Furthermore, even if it were disassembly down to elementary particles instead of annihilation, that's still dead. It takes far less disassembly than that to kill a person, obviously. With disassembly down to elementary particles there are no human, nor even organic, structures left; no heart, no brain, no blood, no cells of any kind, etc. That's dead.

"Your annihilation process would refer to subatomic particles colliding with its corresponding antiparticles to release enormous amounts of energy for a nuclear bomb or warp speed in the Trek universe. "Dilithium crystals are used in tactical warp drives to focus the energy from matter-antimatter reactions for power. The warp engines and transporters use two entirely different technologies. Transporters are not creating fission for enormous gain in energy. Transporters are simply transporting using dematerialization/materialization process. Don't quit your day job!"

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

"You already lost the argument, but just for my fun..."

Comical Irony Alert: Part VI

""...no tangents..."
"$1 bill...4 quarters"
That's a tangent!"

No, it isn't Slow Doug, it's an analogy that's directly relevant to your asinine assertion that matter and energy are "literally the same thing."

"Irrelevant. Both are canon."

It doesn't matter what someone decides is "canon" or not. When discussing a TV show or movie, only things that are established in the TV show or movie count. Furthermore, your external sources don't help you anyway, since annihilation and disassembly down to a subatomic level both inevitably result in death.

"living human is made of matter"

Yikes! You don't know 4th grade science.

Comical Irony Alert: Part VII, you know, coming from the buffoon who said that energy occupies space (LOL! again), and that electrons and protons are energy (LOL! again), and is now contesting the fact that humans are made of matter (LOL!).

"Everyone knows humans are made from atoms."

Atoms are matter, Special Ed, and atoms aren't even the most fundamental type of particle that humans are made of.

"No reason to continue. Take your defeat with grace."

Comical Irony Alert: Part VIII

reply

[–] Keelai (36087) 2 months ago

You're flailing and embarrassing yourself. You lost the debate.

ROTFLMAO that you believe Annihilation and Dematerialization are the same thing.

"Warp drive in Star Trek works by annihilating matter (in the form of deuterium, a kind of hydrogen gas) and antimatter in a fusion reaction mediated by dilithium crystals."

"In "Star Trek's" Transporter device, normal matter is converted temporarily into energy, then beamed to a target point for restoration to its original pattern and structure.
The "Vibra-Transmitter" described in Frank K. Kelley’s 1933 story "Into the Meteorite Orbit" functions similarly to Star Trek’s Transporter. The human body is "reduced to vibration traveling on a wave-channel" and then reintegrated into matter in a receiving chamber."

Face your loss like a grownup.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4836) 2 months ago

"You're flailing and embarrassing yourself."

Comical Irony Alert: Part IX

"You lost the debate."

Comical Irony Alert: Part X. And I'll go ahead and point out that you're not only day-old dumb, but you're clearly delusional as well.

"ROTFLMAO"

What does it mean when an established idiot who is in a state of delusion, laughs?

"that you believe Annihilation and Dematerialization are the same thing."

They are the same thing, simpleton:

de·ma·te·ri·al·ize
verb
1. become free of physical substance; cease to have material character or qualities.

Annihilation (converting matter to energy) is dematerialization by definition, obviously, since energy has no physical substance; no material character or qualities.

"Warp drive in Star Trek works by annihilating matter (in the form of deuterium, a kind of hydrogen gas) and antimatter in a fusion reaction mediated by dilithium crystals."

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

""In "Star Trek's" Transporter device, normal matter is converted temporarily into energy [which is the exact physics definition of "annihilation"]"

Thank you, Captain Obvious, but I've been saying that all along, and you've yet again conceded that the transporter annihilates/kills people.

"Face your loss like a grownup."

Your delusion is dismissed and Comical Irony Alert: Part XI.

Also, not only did you concede in this most recent post of yours, but you also conceded in your first reply to me when you said:

The transporter is just converting from mass to energy back to mass again.[which is the exact physics definition of "annihilation"]

And along the way you established yourself as an idiot by e.g., claiming that energy occupies space (LOL!), claiming that electrons and protons are energy (LOL!), claiming that humans are not made of matter, they are made of atoms (LOL!), and making delusional proclamations of victory (LOL!).

You + an idiot = 2 idiots.

reply

[–] Keelai (36087) a month ago

Transporter works the way the Star Trek franchise states therefore no one is killed. They use 23rd science and technology of dematerialization/materialization. You know nothing about 23rd century science!

Your annihilation = nuclear fission = turning Bones into a nuclear bomb. You suk at science.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4836) a month ago

"Transporter works the way the Star Trek franchise states"

It converts matter to energy, and converting a human to energy kills said human, obviously.

"therefore no one is killed."

Your mere gainsaying is dismissed.

"They use 23rd science and technology of dematerialization/materialization."

A human who has been dematerialized is dead, obviously. Do you know what else can dematerialize a human in Star Trek? Phasers set to kill. Also, the "disintegration chambers" that were used for executions in the episode "A Taste of Armageddon." LOL at you thinking a person could possibly be alive after being dematerialized. After being dematerialized, the person has no cells anymore, let alone the vital organs that are made of cells. You're "arguing" that someone with no brain, no heart, no lungs, no blood, no body or body part of any kind, isn't dead, which makes you a moron, obviously.

"You know nothing about 23rd century science!"

Your non sequitur is dismissed, and, Comical Irony Alert: Part XII.

"Your annihilation = nuclear fission = turning Bones into a nuclear bomb."

Your non sequitur is dismissed, simpleton.

"You suk at science."

Comical Irony Alert: Part XIII. Your established ignorance of science (and stupidity in general) is hilariously astounding. You've claimed that energy occupies space (LOL!), that electrons and protons are energy (LOL!), and that humans are not made of matter, they are made of atoms (LOL!).

You don't know enough to be having this argument with anyone, since you've established that you don't even understand the difference between matter and energy. You don't even know enough to be embarrassed by the laughably wrong assertions you've made.

Imagine telling someone they "suk at science" after claiming that humans are not made of matter, they are made of atoms (LOL!). You're like a character in a Beavis and Butt-Head cartoon.

reply

[–] Keelai (36087) a month ago

Transporter works the way the Star Trek franchise states therefore no one is killed. They use 23rd science and technology of dematerialization/materialization. You know nothing about 23rd century science!

No one is blown-up.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4836) a month ago

Your mere gainsaying and overall non sequitur is dismissed, and since you're fresh out of arguments, your tacit concession is noted.

reply

[–] johnmiller (4011) 10 months ago

Regardless of the philosophical and scientific questions, the reason why the Transporter exists is: The makers of the Original Series didn't want to have to do the extra Visual Effects shots of a shuttle craft going down to a planet and back again every episode. The Transporter solved that issue.

reply

[–] fani (453) 10 months ago

According to laws of universe matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed and total amount is fixed in the universe and they can be converted from one form to another only or energy to matter

So when transporting molecules and atoms and quarks and everything within is converted to energy and reconstituted back into the original matter. So you're the same you just transported through space and time faster.

The transporter is not making a copy of you because to make a copy you'd need to convert your matter to energy and then dispose of that matter and transport that energy to point B and use molecules there to reconstitute you back but that's an issue if molecules and atoms etc there aren't available.

So it takes you, makes it energy, sends it across and reconstitutes that same energy back to the original matter

reply

[–] JohnBraun604 (353) 10 months ago

I will accept that Fani! thank you so much :)

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 2 months ago

There will never be a thing called the matter transporter. It's a TV device, as are warp engines.

reply