Well, Anderson may have made a lucky guess, but at the time he had no was of knowing that, so it doesn't make much sense to cite that as your evidence for the idea.
Excuse me? Did I say it was evidence? I credited the source where I read the idea. If I were a scientist, I'd need evidence. This wasn't a theory, just an idea that, given some research, could plausibly become the basis of one.
[/QUOTE]However, there's no way that would be enough to account for the majority of the missing mass. If it were baryonic matter, there'd be a lot more light extinction from all the clutter in between the stars.[/QUOTE] Didn't say it was, just that it potentially explains some of it.
The term "transtator" was introduced, and established as "the basis for every important piece of equipment that we have" (in Spock's words), in the TOS episode "A Piece of the Action" by David P. Harmon and Gene L. Coon.
Yeah, I couldn't remember for certain if there was a reference on the show, but did remember the Reeves'Stevens' use of it. Still, if there's some change in physics that throws the replicators off, it'll throw off anything using transtators, IMO.