Transporters: Is it just me, or do you disintegrate, and then get a clone that has your memories at the destination point?
Replicators: Are you aware that to create your sundae the way they do on the show, they'd need about as much power as they do to go to warp?
Sub-Space: What's with subspace anyway? It is WARP drive, doesn't that mean they warp space to make them go faster? What's with subspace?
Had this one game called Freespace which had Subspace, but the Subspace made me think more of hyperspace... and the way it worked made me think of Wing Commander, but we never do get a clear view as to what subspace is, or how it works in Star Trek.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Wow. A newbie.
Fascinating...
Posted by StyroFoam Man (Member # 706) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Wow. A newbie.
Fascinating...
We were all new once.... Go easy on him... Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Transporters: Is it just me, or do you disintegrate, and then get a clone that has your memories at the destination point?"
Yes, you do.
"Replicators: Are you aware that to create your sundae the way they do on the show, they'd need about as much power as they do to go to warp?"
I don't know about that, but they'd certainly need as much power as it takes to transport a sundae.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I'd say the current technobabble supports the idea that you move from A to B when transported, instead of being killed at A and a clone rebuilt at B. The technobabble speaks of a "phased matter stream" that is sent across space from A to B, so apparently your original molecules or quarks or whatnot move from A to B. It's just that they happen to be "phased" during the trip...
Apparently, the process of "de-phasing" and "re-phasing" doesn't take (or release!) quite as much energy as E=mc2 would suggest (since you aren't transforming the victim into energy, but into "phased matter"). So you don't need to burn a hundred kilos of antimatter to move an average person by transporter. Similarly, you don't need to burn 100 grams of antimatter to create a king-size sundae, because you aren't getting the sundae material out of thin air through E=mc2 - you are simply transporting it from holding tanks to the replicator terminal and rearranging it a bit.
And subspace, of course, is everything and anything - depending on story needs.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Subspace, as a science fiction codeword for "freaky-space that's not quite within the four dimensions we're comfortable with," predates Star Trek by a bit. It's just hyperspace (n-space, foldspace, etc.) with a different name, I think.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
In the novel Federation, Zefram Cochrane says, "I distort the continuum to change a small volume of it into something else where the restrictions of normal space-time do not apply."
That's about as good a definition of subspace (and why you can travel faster than light in it) as you're likely to find in a Trek source, even if it is non-canon.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Timo: Even if all your little bits are "phased" and transported, rather than being conveerted to energy, they're still getting shredded apart, so you're still dead.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Why? You're made out of the same stuff on the other end, and are apparently conscious (or at least imagine yourself to be) during the process itself. It seems to me we've got all the requirements for a continuity of consciousness, however unrealistic that may be.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, who defines "alive" then? If you're ripped into your constituent particles and you're still alive, then why can't you still be alive when you've been converted into energy? Supposedly, life has to do w/ neural activity, or a lack thereof. If that's the definition we're using, you're dead either way. When your brain has been torn into separate molecules and mixed all around, your synapses are going to be a bit too wide to work properly.
So, basically, what I want to know is why "being converted into energy" is defined as "dead" while "being cut up into the smallest convenient pieces" is defined as "alive".
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
In reality, I would agree with you, but we know that the mind keeps working during the Trek transporter process.
Posted by The Apocalypse (Member # 633) on :
You don't disintergrate when you transport, if you did, they would be called "executioners" instead of transporters..
I thought you materialized? as in transferring your molecules?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I think something to do with the Hisenburg compensators basically 'freeze' you at that point and time - molcules, atoms, quarks, synapses, chemicals, cells, hair, clothes, sundaes etc. and convert you to what ever move you through the ship and then down a path to your destination where you are reassembled - exactly the same as before - and when you are in the correct pattern, you are 'unfrozen' - you essentially think you are still conscious - and probably for a fraction of time at the start and at the end of transport you are (see "Realm of Fear" and "Wrath of Kahn". but for that split nanosecond you are 'frozen as is'. That also is probably why Scotty managed to keep himself alive for 75 years or so - he kept himself recycled in that 'frozen' state - which would normally be next to instantaneous for the transportee - ended up being several decades... as long as his 'pattern' didn't degrade and there was power available to keep this process recycled. Hmm - a new way for deep space travel in the 24th century!?!
I could just see Caretaker ok everyone into the Transporters! Next episode: "Endgame". (P.S. I haven't SEEN Endgame yet - I'm just using the name of the episode since it's the series Finale. Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Hey, now there's a great idea. Have a series (really crappy anyway) and let it start one week and end the next with the final episode.
Why didn't they do this with Voy for real?? Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Cause we would have missed out on pearlers like "Threshold" and "Repression"!
Does anyone have a schematic of the Janeway giant salamander!?! ;o)
Posted by Chris StarShade (Member # 786) on :
I see... interesting.
I also noticed that there are far more stars when warping than would be possible in reality. Anyone have a source that can account for that?
(I have a star-map which shows how the stars going by would REALLY look, and at the warp speed I'm talking about, it feels more like a brisk walk than cruising the highway. It might look the way they have it at Warp 9, but at Warp 5, it's just a brisk walk.)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
But the stars aren't even visible at warp in the Trek universe...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
what are those bright lines flying by then?
and in TOS, the stars didnt streak, the only clue we had to when the ship was at warp was that it was going fast in relation to us. This is what causes the shuttles at warp confusion.. on TOS whether it was .5 sublight or warp two you still saw the ship going along at the same speed
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"what are those bright lines flying by then?"
Something other than stars. All it takes to prove it is watching a single "going-to-warp" or "coming-out-of-warp" scene. There's no correlation between the stars and the Funky Warp Streaks™.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Best theory I've heard is that they're charged particles excited by the ships warp envelope.
BTW, it seems some of us have an imperfect concept of cloning. Transporters do not 'clone' the transportee. If they did, it would take years for them to mature back to the correct age, and even then, neural engrams aren't cloned. Not to mention the fact that a good portion of who we are is a result of biochemical processes in the womb, environmental influences, etc...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)