The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Rebel Yell on February 01, 2008, 09:15:36 AM
-
Deep13 (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-01-08 10:08 AM
Original message
Question about the transporter beam on Star Trek.
About these advertisementsThe idea behind it is that it dematerializes someone on the ship and them puts him or her back together on the planet.
But how do they know that's really what happens? How do they know it doesn't KILL the person on the ship by disintergration (generally thought to be a fatal condition) and then make a new, identical person on the planet? The new person on the planet would be exactly the same as the previous (now dead) person with the exact same memories. That person will believe himself or herself to be the person from the ship because he will "remember" being there. Yet it will be false memories like those in Total Recall or Blade Runner because there are artificially created by the transporter beam making an exact copy of the previous person who is now gone.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341)
How's this for an answer, IT'S NOT REAL.
The lounge really is the Bar Scene From Star Wars
-
not alot of hot chicks in the bar scene in SW...
-
(http://static.flickr.com/51/125253217_d5beb6bc64.jpg)
'Arn't you a little short to be a stormtrooper?'
-
I am a fan of the Star Wars movies, and I like to watch Shatner overact as Kirk. But there is no bigger loser on the planet than Trekkies....
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/snuffydaddy/564b0152.jpg)
-
Well, seeing how Star Trek is fantasy fiction, I don't have trouble with the transporter. If Star Trek was a documentary, I would have to say it is bullsh*t. The first clue would be that Spock, living in this vastly advanced time, would have had his ears corrected at birth.
-
(http://www.drelocation.com/Texas/collin/prosper.gif)
Live long in Prosper.
-
Deep13 (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-01-08 10:08 AM
Original message
Question about the transporter beam on Star Trek.
About these advertisementsThe idea behind it is that it dematerializes someone on the ship and them puts him or her back together on the planet.
But how do they know that's really what happens? How do they know it doesn't KILL the person on the ship by disintergration (generally thought to be a fatal condition) and then make a new, identical person on the planet? The new person on the planet would be exactly the same as the previous (now dead) person with the exact same memories. That person will believe himself or herself to be the person from the ship because he will "remember" being there. Yet it will be false memories like those in Total Recall or Blade Runner because there are artificially created by the transporter beam making an exact copy of the previous person who is now gone.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341)
How's this for an answer, IT'S NOT REAL.
The lounge really is the Bar Scene From Star Wars
FWIIW, a lot of devices introduced in ST:TOS were inspirations for real world inventions. The sliding doors are an example. One of those TLC stations had a improperly-named program called something like "How William Shatner saved the Universe" that reviewed the Trek-inspired technology.
Roddenberry was emphatic about NOT describing all the technology, because that is not what people do. But he did have technical and SF people on staff (Dorothy "DC" Fontana prominently) who at least came up with consistent theoretical physics to describe the ST Universe.
IIRC, there is a force shield that keeps the particles contained. The computer is responsible for tracking the billions of particles. There have been several famous transporter accidents: The "good Kirk/evil Kirk" in TOS "The Enemy Within," the buffeer failure in ST:TM I (which partially answers the DUmmy's question -- when the particles don't reassemble properly it is not pretty), and the creation of Thomas Riker described in TNG episode "Second Chances."
Isn't it sad I know all that?
-
What's funniest of all is you have a few morons trying to explain it. :lmao:
-
Deep13 (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-01-08 10:08 AM
Original message
Question about the transporter beam on Star Trek.
About these advertisementsThe idea behind it is that it dematerializes someone on the ship and them puts him or her back together on the planet.
But how do they know that's really what happens? How do they know it doesn't KILL the person on the ship by disintergration (generally thought to be a fatal condition) and then make a new, identical person on the planet? The new person on the planet would be exactly the same as the previous (now dead) person with the exact same memories. That person will believe himself or herself to be the person from the ship because he will "remember" being there. Yet it will be false memories like those in Total Recall or Blade Runner because there are artificially created by the transporter beam making an exact copy of the previous person who is now gone.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341)
How's this for an answer, IT'S NOT REAL.
The lounge really is the Bar Scene From Star Wars
FWIIW, a lot of devices introduced in ST:TOS were inspirations for real world inventions. The sliding doors are an example. One of those TLC stations had a improperly-named program called something like "How William Shatner saved the Universe" that reviewed the Trek-inspired technology.
Roddenberry was emphatic about NOT describing all the technology, because that is not what people do. But he did have technical and SF people on staff (Dorothy "DC" Fontana prominently) who at least came up with consistent theoretical physics to describe the ST Universe.
IIRC, there is a force shield that keeps the particles contained. The computer is responsible for tracking the billions of particles. There have been several famous transporter accidents: The "good Kirk/evil Kirk" in TOS "The Enemy Within," the buffeer failure in ST:TM I (which partially answers the DUmmy's question -- when the particles don't reassemble properly it is not pretty), and the creation of Thomas Riker described in TNG episode "Second Chances."
Isn't it sad I know all that?
quite. :bawl:
-
I'm patiently waiting for the consumer version of the Holideck to come on the market :popcorn: :-)
-
The shuttlecraft sets weren't done on time and they needed a way to get planetside. Damn those practical TV people.
-
I'm patiently waiting for the consumer version of the Holideck to come on the market :popcorn: :-)
Til then you going to have to settle for porn flicks. :couch:
-
Wait a minute. "Lost In Space" had those sliding doors first.
-
Wait a minute. "Lost In Space" had those sliding doors first.
Maybe they weren't as prominent. I kind of remember them on the Jupiter 2, but they were to go from the main deck to the quarters. 90% of LIS was outdoors.
-
I'm patiently waiting for the consumer version of the Holideck to come on the market :popcorn: :-)
It was funny how TNG danced with the idea that people might (might? WILL) use the Holodeck for "improper fantasies" when they had Lt. Barclay fantasizing about out-machoing Riker and "winning" Troi. In RL, that would have been him, Troi, some coco butter and no clothes.
-
Wait a minute. "Lost In Space" had those sliding doors first.
Maybe they weren't as prominent. I kind of remember them on the Jupiter 2, but they were to go from the main deck to the quarters. 90% of LIS was outdoors.
I believe studies showed it to be 83%. You're wrong.
-
Wait a minute. "Lost In Space" had those sliding doors first.
Maybe they weren't as prominent. I kind of remember them on the Jupiter 2, but they were to go from the main deck to the quarters. 90% of LIS was outdoors.
I believe studies showed it to be 83%. You're wrong.
I think I am quoting you when I say that studies show that 90% of all statistics from studies are pulled out of the poster's ass ;)
-
Wait a minute. "Lost In Space" had those sliding doors first.
Maybe they weren't as prominent. I kind of remember them on the Jupiter 2, but they were to go from the main deck to the quarters. 90% of LIS was outdoors.
I believe studies showed it to be 83%. You're wrong.
I think I am quoting you when I say that studies show that 90% of all statistics from studies are pulled out of the poster's ass ;)
Since your hand is up there anyway, remember to fish around and pull out an uneven number like 83%. It has more credibility.
-
Wait a minute. "Lost In Space" had those sliding doors first.
Maybe they weren't as prominent. I kind of remember them on the Jupiter 2, but they were to go from the main deck to the quarters. 90% of LIS was outdoors.
I believe studies showed it to be 83%. You're wrong.
I think I am quoting you when I say that studies show that 90% of all statistics from studies are pulled out of the poster's ass ;)
Since your hand is up there anyway, remember to fish around and pull out an uneven number like 83%. It has more credibility.
You could Spockify it and add some decimals like 83.562%
-
Deep13 (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-01-08 10:08 AM
Original message
Question about the transporter beam on Star Trek.
About these advertisementsThe idea behind it is that it dematerializes someone on the ship and them puts him or her back together on the planet.
But how do they know that's really what happens? How do they know it doesn't KILL the person on the ship by disintergration (generally thought to be a fatal condition) and then make a new, identical person on the planet? The new person on the planet would be exactly the same as the previous (now dead) person with the exact same memories. That person will believe himself or herself to be the person from the ship because he will "remember" being there. Yet it will be false memories like those in Total Recall or Blade Runner because there are artificially created by the transporter beam making an exact copy of the previous person who is now gone.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341)
How's this for an answer, IT'S NOT REAL.
The lounge really is the Bar Scene From Star Wars
Who said it isn't real, who? C'mon don't talk crazy.... :bawl:
-
Wait a minute. "Lost In Space" had those sliding doors first.
Maybe they weren't as prominent. I kind of remember them on the Jupiter 2, but they were to go from the main deck to the quarters. 90% of LIS was outdoors.
I believe studies showed it to be 83%. You're wrong.
I think I am quoting you when I say that studies show that 90% of all statistics from studies are pulled out of the poster's ass ;)
Since your hand is up there anyway, remember to fish around and pull out an uneven number like 83%. It has more credibility.
You could Spockify it and add some decimals like 83.562%
Only sperds who watch Star Trek would find that impressive. It is best to use whole numbers to impress normal folks.
-
Deep13 (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-01-08 10:08 AM
Original message
Question about the transporter beam on Star Trek.
About these advertisementsThe idea behind it is that it dematerializes someone on the ship and them puts him or her back together on the planet.
But how do they know that's really what happens? How do they know it doesn't KILL the person on the ship by disintergration (generally thought to be a fatal condition) and then make a new, identical person on the planet? The new person on the planet would be exactly the same as the previous (now dead) person with the exact same memories. That person will believe himself or herself to be the person from the ship because he will "remember" being there. Yet it will be false memories like those in Total Recall or Blade Runner because there are artificially created by the transporter beam making an exact copy of the previous person who is now gone.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341)
How's this for an answer, IT'S NOT REAL.
The lounge really is the Bar Scene From Star Wars
Who said it isn't real, who? C'mon don't talk crazy.... :bawl:
In your wacked-out world it probably is real (is that better? :-*)
-
Wait a minute. "Lost In Space" had those sliding doors first.
Maybe they weren't as prominent. I kind of remember them on the Jupiter 2, but they were to go from the main deck to the quarters. 90% of LIS was outdoors.
I believe studies showed it to be 83%. You're wrong.
I think I am quoting you when I say that studies show that 90% of all statistics from studies are pulled out of the poster's ass ;)
Since your hand is up there anyway, remember to fish around and pull out an uneven number like 83%. It has more credibility.
You could Spockify it and add some decimals like 83.562%
Only sperds who watch Star Trek would find that impressive. It is best to use whole numbers to impress normal folks.
Other than Frank, name one "normal person" on this board. :)
-
Deep13 (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-01-08 10:08 AM
Original message
Question about the transporter beam on Star Trek.
About these advertisementsThe idea behind it is that it dematerializes someone on the ship and them puts him or her back together on the planet.
But how do they know that's really what happens? How do they know it doesn't KILL the person on the ship by disintergration (generally thought to be a fatal condition) and then make a new, identical person on the planet? The new person on the planet would be exactly the same as the previous (now dead) person with the exact same memories. That person will believe himself or herself to be the person from the ship because he will "remember" being there. Yet it will be false memories like those in Total Recall or Blade Runner because there are artificially created by the transporter beam making an exact copy of the previous person who is now gone.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341)
How's this for an answer, IT'S NOT REAL.
The lounge really is the Bar Scene From Star Wars
Who said it isn't real, who? C'mon don't talk crazy.... :bawl:
Hey, just remember NOT to screw with the Heisenberg Uncouplers.
-
Wait a minute. "Lost In Space" had those sliding doors first.
Maybe they weren't as prominent. I kind of remember them on the Jupiter 2, but they were to go from the main deck to the quarters. 90% of LIS was outdoors.
I believe studies showed it to be 83%. You're wrong.
I think I am quoting you when I say that studies show that 90% of all statistics from studies are pulled out of the poster's ass ;)
Since your hand is up there anyway, remember to fish around and pull out an uneven number like 83%. It has more credibility.
You could Spockify it and add some decimals like 83.562%
Only sperds who watch Star Trek would find that impressive. It is best to use whole numbers to impress normal folks.
Other than Frank, name one "normal person" on this board. :)
You must know a different Frank. The only Frank I know here is the Frank who collects cats and lives with antique pig poop in the Sandhills of Nebraska.
-
Wait a minute. "Lost In Space" had those sliding doors first.
Maybe they weren't as prominent. I kind of remember them on the Jupiter 2, but they were to go from the main deck to the quarters. 90% of LIS was outdoors.
I believe studies showed it to be 83%. You're wrong.
I think I am quoting you when I say that studies show that 90% of all statistics from studies are pulled out of the poster's ass ;)
Since your hand is up there anyway, remember to fish around and pull out an uneven number like 83%. It has more credibility.
You could Spockify it and add some decimals like 83.562%
Only sperds who watch Star Trek would find that impressive. It is best to use whole numbers to impress normal folks.
Other than Frank, name one "normal person" on this board. :)
You must know a different Frank. The only Frank I know here is the Frank who collects cats and lives with antique pig poop in the Sandhills of Nebraska.
OK, that leaves no one who is normal.
-
Other than Frank, name one "normal person" on this board. :)
You must know a different Frank. The only Frank I know here is the Frank who collects cats and lives with antique pig poop in the Sandhills of Nebraska.
OK, that leaves no one who is normal.
That's more like it.
-
Wait a minute. "Lost In Space" had those sliding doors first.
Maybe they weren't as prominent. I kind of remember them on the Jupiter 2, but they were to go from the main deck to the quarters. 90% of LIS was outdoors.
I believe studies showed it to be 83%. You're wrong.
I think I am quoting you when I say that studies show that 90% of all statistics from studies are pulled out of the poster's ass ;)
Since your hand is up there anyway, remember to fish around and pull out an uneven number like 83%. It has more credibility.
You could Spockify it and add some decimals like 83.562%
Only sperds who watch Star Trek would find that impressive. It is best to use whole numbers to impress normal folks.
Other than Frank, name one "normal person" on this board. :)
ME ME ME!!!!!! :yahoo:
-
Other than Frank, name one "normal person" on this board. :)
ME ME ME!!!!!! :yahoo:
You will have to stop eating your own boogers before you can qualify. Sorry.
-
Other than Frank, name one "normal person" on this board. :)
ME ME ME!!!!!! :yahoo:
You will have to stop eating your own boogers before you can qualify. Sorry.
Can you see me? How did you know? I thought that was normal.
-
Triumph meets the star wars nerds, I know not StarTrek but funny and same nerds.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/nerds
-
Triumph meets the star wars nerds, I know not StarTrek but funny and same nerds.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/nerds
Is this the one where he asks the guy dressed in the Darth Vader suit which button calls his momma to come pick him up? I think about that every time I go to the DUmp.
-
Other than Frank, name one "normal person" on this board. :)
ME ME ME!!!!!! :yahoo:
You will have to stop eating your own boogers before you can qualify. Sorry.
Can you see me? How did you know? I thought that was normal.
You keep forgetting to turn your webcam off.
-
Other than Frank, name one "normal person" on this board. :)
ME ME ME!!!!!! :yahoo:
You will have to stop eating your own boogers before you can qualify. Sorry.
Can you see me? How did you know? I thought that was normal.
You keep forgetting to turn your webcam off.
DAMMITT! :banghead:
-
What's funniest of all is you have a few morons trying to explain it. :lmao:
Actually, when we were homeschooling we read a book called The Physics of Star Trek, had an intro by Stephen Hawking (who is brilliant). It treats all of these things, including the transporter, holograms, and Data seriously enough to compare them to the laws of physics and what's possible (at least as far as what we know now). It was entertaining and a great way to study physics with a 13 year old boy. I wish they would've had one for Star Wars.
Cindie
-
Triumph meets the star wars nerds, I know not StarTrek but funny and same nerds.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/nerds
That was freaking hilarious
-
Triumph meets the star wars nerds, I know not StarTrek but funny and same nerds.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/nerds
Is this the one where he asks the guy dressed in the Darth Vader suit which button calls his momma to come pick him up? I think about that every time I go to the DUmp.
Yes, and he when asks when the baby is due comes back with "Well that will be the last time he sees female genitalia." That really makes me think of the DUmp.
-
Deep13 (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-01-08 10:08 AM
Original message
Question about the transporter beam on Star Trek.
About these advertisementsThe idea behind it is that it dematerializes someone on the ship and them puts him or her back together on the planet.
But how do they know that's really what happens? How do they know it doesn't KILL the person on the ship by disintergration (generally thought to be a fatal condition) and then make a new, identical person on the planet? The new person on the planet would be exactly the same as the previous (now dead) person with the exact same memories. That person will believe himself or herself to be the person from the ship because he will "remember" being there. Yet it will be false memories like those in Total Recall or Blade Runner because there are artificially created by the transporter beam making an exact copy of the previous person who is now gone.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7419341)
How's this for an answer, IT'S NOT REAL.
The lounge really is the Bar Scene From Star Wars
Who said it isn't real, who? C'mon don't talk crazy.... :bawl:
In your wacked-out world it probably is real (is that better? :-*)
I feel better.... :-) and please don't delete this one...OK?
-
Deep13 (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-01-08 10:08 AM
Original message
Question about the transporter beam on Star Trek. The idea behind it is that it dematerializes someone on the ship and them puts him or her back together on the planet.
But how do they know that's really what happens?
Diebold invented the transporter. Damn you, Scotty. :whatever:
-
I always thought, given that matter is energy, that people who step into a transporter beam are somehow translated into energy and then "broadcast" like radio waves are broadcast, to the planet or wherever, where they energy was translated back into matter.
I never really figured out how it worked from the planet back to the ship though.
I think the original version of Willy Wonka gave the best explanation of this.
Honestly, with all these good movies and TV shows, I never understood the need for the University degree. Anything anyone needs to know can be pieced together by watching the correct sequences of media. To quote Dr. Brian Oblivion: Television is reality and reality is less than television. So, my advice to the Star Trek geeks: quit over thinking things and just go with it. It's only reality after all.
-
I'm patiently waiting for the consumer version of the Holideck to come on the market :popcorn: :-)
It was funny how TNG danced with the idea that people might (might? WILL) use the Holodeck for "improper fantasies" when they had Lt. Barclay fantasizing about out-machoing Riker and "winning" Troi. In RL, that would have been him, Troi, some coco butter and no clothes.
Scott Adams wrote about this in The Dilbert Principle too. Not just abusing the holodek technology stuff like beaming in cheerleaders and I don't remember what all.
-
Life Will Not Be Like Star Trek
For those of you who only watched the 'old' Star Trek, the holodeck can create simulated worlds that look and feel just like the real thing. The characters on Star Trek use the holodeck for recreation during breaks from work. This is somewhat unrealistic. If I had a holodeck, I'd close the door and never come out until I died of exhaustion. It would be hard to convince me I should be anywhere but in the holodeck, getting my oil massage from Cindy Crawford and her simulated twin sister.
Holodecks would be very addicting. If there weren't enough holodecks to go around, I'd get the names of all the people who had reservations ahead of me and beam them into concrete walls. I'd feel tense about it, but that's exactly why I'd need a massage.
I'm afraid the holodeck will be society's last invention.
http://www.troutman.org/humor/startrek.html :hyper:
-
What's funniest of all is you have a few morons trying to explain it. :lmao:
Actually, when we were homeschooling we read a book called The Physics of Star Trek, had an intro by Stephen Hawking (who is brilliant). It treats all of these things, including the transporter, holograms, and Data seriously enough to compare them to the laws of physics and what's possible (at least as far as what we know now). It was entertaining and a great way to study physics with a 13 year old boy. I wish they would've had one for Star Wars.
Cindie
Oh yeah, that reminds me a few years ago I went to see a lecture on the physics of Star Trek. Pretty much, from what I remember, it's all true, just not in the right order.
-
When I was in junior high, I got a copy of The Starfleet Technical Manual for my birthday. I loved it. It had floorplans and blueprints for the starships, instructions on how to play 3D chess, and "diagrams" how to build transporters and tricorders.
I think those were mostly bullshit. :-)
-
When I was in junior high, I got a copy of The Starfleet Technical Manual for my birthday. I loved it. It had floorplans and blueprints for the starships, instructions on how to play 3D chess, and "diagrams" how to build transporters and tricorders.
I think those were mostly bullshit. :-)
I used to like tricorders and starships until I discovered the TARDIS and sonic screwdrivers.
But I guess the best would be an Infinite Improbability Drive. Or a TARDIS fitted with an IID would be IIDeal.
-
After I failed my language competency exam at school, my brother gave me a Klingon-English dictionary for Christmas with a card that said "This might help you learn something you can actually use."
The test was for French.
I didn't know if I should kick my brother's ass or laugh my own off.
-
I'm patiently waiting for the consumer version of the Holideck to come on the market :popcorn: :-)
I dunno, that thing seemed to have more bugs than a cockroach ranch.