Transporter, fact, fiction, or "I'm not getting in that thing!"

[Joelene9]

I remember it, Capt Kirk's personna was placed into the body of a yellow-shirt female (yellow shirt usually - transient character in the series).  Although it's been a while since I saw that one (seems to me it was downplayed as a rarely recurring re-run in the series), I recall that Kirk became weak and indecisive in a female body.  It struck me as a bad conception of what might really happen in such a situation.

I believe that Kirk was swapped intentionally with a female, wearing yellow, visiting engineer who was doing mindswap experiments using the transporter.  She was wanting to captain a starship.  She had an incompetent doctor as an assistant.  Dr. "Bones" McCoy found out about that and notified Kirk in the female body of her intention after this was done.  This after Kirk really had to convince Bones that his mind is in the female body.  There were no female captains in the original series.  Nor were there any female admirals or generals in the US military at the time of the first airing of Star Trek, except maybe a nurse. 

  Yellow jerseys on an aircraft carriers were aircraft movers from the hangar bay to the flight deck and vice versa.  These guys were in transit to say the least!

Joelene

[spacial]

Antigravity gets first test at Cern's Alpha experiment

Researchers at Cern in Switzerland have proved the merits of a way to test antimatter as a source of the long-postulated "anti-gravity".

Antimatter particles are the "mirror image" of normal matter, but with opposite electric charge.

How antimatter responds to gravity remains a mystery, however; it may "fall up" rather than down.

Now researchers reporting in Nature Communications have made strides toward finally resolving that notion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22355187

[Beth Andrea]

I read an essay once that described one particular aspect that I'd never thought of...the conservation of matter and energy.

Basically, a ship in geostationary orbit is going much faster than the ground it is over (because of the larger orbital radius-v- a spot on the ground)...

Higher speed = more kinetic energy (which must be dissipated somehow/somewhere near the materializing target location). I forget now, but the amount of energy for a human sized object was energy to ignite all combustibles within several hundred yards.

However, if they got all the glitches out of it...I don't see why one wouldn't use it, besides simple fear of dying or being reformed as a tub of yogurt...but without the tub...

[Jamie D]

Spock Prime: You are, in fact, the Mr. Scott who postulated the theory of transwarp beaming?

Scotty: That's what I'm talking about! How do you think I wound up here? Had a little debate with my instructor on relativistic physics and how it pertains to subspace travel. He seemed to think that the range of transporting something like a... like a grapefruit was limited to about 100 miles. I told him that I could not only beam a grapefruit from one planet to the adjacent planet in the same system - which is easy, by the way - I could do it with a life form. So, I tested it out on Admiral Archer's prized beagle.

James T. Kirk: Wait, I know that dog. What happened to it?

Scotty: I'll tell you when it reappears. Ahem. I don't know, I do feel guilty about that.

'nuf said.

[peky]

The basic equation for kinetic energy is E = 1/2 M V*V.   (read as e equals one half M times V squared).  This might sound a lil bit familiar to the better known E = MC squared, The equation for which Einstein is so famous (among many others).  Yes, there is a connection.  At "ordinary" conditions (those which are commonly familiar to us as living, breathing humans), mass is mostly just mass.  but, as the velocity of an object increases, the mass increases as well.  As the velocity comes closer to the speed of light, The mass of that object approaches infinity.  Since it requires infinite energy to accelerate(increase velocity) of an infinite mass, it is theoretically impossible for any object to attain the speed of light.

True ^^^ for a four dimensional space only. We do know that quantum physics change in higher-ordered dimensional space.

Now that we know that the universe contain 12 dimensions =-thanks to the discovery of the Higgs bosom- it is possible that in some of those dimension the speed of light is not a constant...

BTW, in StarTrek 'beaming" exploits "space warping" which does not involves vectorial movement

[Devlyn]

I'm still worried.......

Spaceballs- Beaming Sequence

[MiaOhMya!]

Imminent warp core breach = my arse on a transporter (screw the shuttles)

[Sandy]

Of course they are real.  We have then in the 24th century.

Janet!!!

Quiet!  You aren't supposed to tell!!!!

You're in big trouble, sister!  When Starfleet... er...

*nevermind*

-Sandy (Two to beam up!)

[Beth Andrea]

True ^^^ for a four dimensional space only. We do know that quantum physics change in higher-ordered dimensional space.

Now that we know that the universe contain 12 dimensions =-thanks to the discovery of the Higgs bosom- it is possible that in some of those dimension the speed of light is not a constant...

BTW, in StarTrek 'beaming" exploits "space warping" which does not involves vectorial movement

Who is Higgs, and why is her bosom involved in other dimensions?

[MiaOhMya!]

Agh, y'all nerds have me thinking...

Ok, so lets assume we've found a way to harness enough energy to atomise and reconstruct an object at a distance...the next issue that comes to mind is memory...

A quick google search gave 7x10^27 atoms / person. A transporter would require the perfect reading & storage of every variable of every atom. Nowadays we just assume many of these variables, but there can be no assumptions in this case.

BUT lets pretend we only needed ONE BIT of information per atom (or  7X10^27 bits of data per person). *grabs graphing calculator*....ok so that's roughly 8X10^17 gigabytes per person or 7.9 x 10^14 terabytes or 724 YOTTABYTES OF WORKING MEMORY PER PERSON!!!!  (a denomination I didn't even know till now).

Now  think about how many variables there may be per atom and multiply by your 724 yottabytes and the number becomes near incomprehensible.

Ugh, our knowledge and our ability to comprehend is so limited that sometimes I get so frustrated I could screammmmm! 

[spacial]

Agh, y'all nerds have me thinking...

Ok, so lets assume we've found a way to harness enough energy to atomise and reconstruct an object at a distance...the next issue that comes to mind is memory...

A quick google search gave 7x10^27 atoms / person. A transporter would require the perfect reading & storage of every variable of every atom. Nowadays we just assume many of these variables, but there can be no assumptions in this case.

BUT lets pretend we only needed ONE BIT of information per atom (or  7X10^27 bits of data per person). *grabs graphing calculator*....ok so that's roughly 8X10^17 gigabytes per person or 7.9 x 10^14 terabytes or 724 YOTTABYTES OF WORKING MEMORY PER PERSON!!!!  (a denomination I didn't even know till now).

Now  think about how many variables there may be per atom and multiply by your 724 yottabytes and the number becomes near incomprehensible.

Ugh, our knowledge and our ability to comprehend is so limited that sometimes I get so frustrated I could screammmmm! 

While I don't really want to appear to be giving any serious credence to notions such as transwarp beeming or even faster than light travel or time travel, since I don't have the information, I am bound to call to mind the dismissals of some in the 60s to the notion of computers switching faster than a few hundred cycles.

The first actual computer I had worked with a memory map. The notion is unknown to modern computer scientists. I feel so old!

The memory was a truly massive 64k.

It used a telephone modem which switched at a massive, 1200 bits per second. It was deemed unlikely that figure would be exceeded.

But there is one point we should consider. If someone fired a bullet into a transporter beem sending that speeding bullet to a selected destination then it would be possible to murder people at a distance as far as the transporter beem could manage.

Just throwing that in for the humour! 

[Devlyn]

Agh, y'all nerds have me thinking...

Ok, so lets assume we've found a way to harness enough energy to atomise and reconstruct an object at a distance...the next issue that comes to mind is memory...

A quick google search gave 7x10^27 atoms / person. A transporter would require the perfect reading & storage of every variable of every atom. Nowadays we just assume many of these variables, but there can be no assumptions in this case.

BUT lets pretend we only needed ONE BIT of information per atom (or  7X10^27 bits of data per person). *grabs graphing calculator*....ok so that's roughly 8X10^17 gigabytes per person or 7.9 x 10^14 terabytes or 724 YOTTABYTES OF WORKING MEMORY PER PERSON!!!!  (a denomination I didn't even know till now).

Now  think about how many variables there may be per atom and multiply by your 724 yottabytes and the number becomes near incomprehensible.

Ugh, our knowledge and our ability to comprehend is so limited that sometimes I get so frustrated I could screammmmm! 

While you were fiddling with your slide rule, I downloaded the Transporter app, works great!

[V M]

What I think would be cool is if it could be programmed and used to cure diseases like cancer and such by transporting the patient from one bed to another minus the disease    Kinda like doing surgery without having to cut the patient open

[Devlyn]

Couldn't you transport a big horseshoe magnet out in front of your ship and Wiley Coyote yourself across the Universe?

[Beth Andrea]

Couldn't you transport a big horseshoe magnet out in front of your ship and Wiley Coyote yourself across the Universe?

That's a crude description of how the Warp Engines work...

Agh, y'all nerds have me thinking...

Ok, so lets assume we've found a way to harness enough energy to atomise and reconstruct an object at a distance...the next issue that comes to mind is memory...

A quick google search gave 7x10^27 atoms / person. A transporter would require the perfect reading & storage of every variable of every atom. Nowadays we just assume many of these variables, but there can be no assumptions in this case.

BUT lets pretend we only needed ONE BIT of information per atom (or  7X10^27 bits of data per person). *grabs graphing calculator*....ok so that's roughly 8X10^17 gigabytes per person or 7.9 x 10^14 terabytes or 724 YOTTABYTES OF WORKING MEMORY PER PERSON!!!!  (a denomination I didn't even know till now).

Now  think about how many variables there may be per atom and multiply by your 724 yottabytes and the number becomes near incomprehensible.

Ugh, our knowledge and our ability to comprehend is so limited that sometimes I get so frustrated I could screammmmm! 

I think you have it misspelled...it's "Yoda-bytes", and they will use the Force to create a perfect fuzzy-logic system to reconstruct things with great precision...similar to how Vader can choke someone from across the room.

[spacial]

What I think would be cool is if it could be programmed and used to cure diseases like cancer and such by transporting the patient from one bed to another minus the disease    Kinda like doing surgery without having to cut the patient open

I'm pretty sure that some surgery is done using mechanically moving arms and various video technology already.

Doesn't seem to be any real reason why it wouldn't work long distance.