RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,523
Posts: 5,512,388
Members: 25,138
Currently online: 451
Newest member: Tosty82

TrekToday headlines

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 23 2013, 09:07 PM   #16
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

Pavonis wrote: View Post
"Exercise damages DNA" doesn't really make sense, but I suppose if you get your science news from the local paper, not much can be done to improve your understanding of what DNA is....
In case you're wondering Pavonis, you're wrong.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19203084

Some other everyday things that can damage a person's DNA would be walking in sun light, and exposing themselves to certain chemicals (like insecticides).

Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2013, 09:45 PM   #17
2takesfrakes
Commodore
 
2takesfrakes's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

I am not a physicist, but I suspect that a transport could work if, instead of converting you to energy, you entered the chamber and space folded around you.
So that, instead of you being beamed somewhere, somewhere is being brought to you, in effect. Maybe it amounts to the same thing, in the end. Who knows? Hopefully, no Spice is necessary ...
__________________
"― And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." (Luke 2:7)
2takesfrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2013, 11:08 PM   #18
Pavonis
Commodore
 
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Pavonis wrote: View Post
"Exercise damages DNA" doesn't really make sense, but I suppose if you get your science news from the local paper, not much can be done to improve your understanding of what DNA is....
In case you're wondering Pavonis, you're wrong.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19203084

Some other everyday things that can damage a person's DNA would be walking in sun light, and exposing themselves to certain chemicals (like insecticides).

Thank you for the link. I'm still not clear on what "DNA damage" means in this context - missing base pairs? bad transcription? How extensive is the damage done by exercise? Is it in cells that are relatively quick to replace? Is there damage to gametes? Will this "exercise-induced DNA damage" be passed on to children? What kind of exercises do the most damage? How does the damage induced by "exercise" compare to the levels of damage inflicted by ionizing radiation? Is the damage done faster than the body's repair mechanisms can undo it? What are the probabilities of this damage leading to more serious conditions? Can you see why I'm asking these questions? Will it do any good for me to read this article you linked to, T'Girl? Did you read it? Do you understand it? Do you have any insights into the research, methodology, or its context to offer me (besides telling me I'm "wrong")?

I'll go read the article now, though.

Edit: From the article linked -
Currently, there are no indications that exhaustive endurance exercise increases the risk for cancer and other diseases via DNA damage. However, it remains to be clarified whether perturbances of the genomic stability of immuno-competent cells are involved in the post-exercise temporary dysfunction of certain aspects of immunity, which may increase the risk of subclinical and clinical infection
So I gather that exercise is related to tissue inflammation, and increased DNA damage as measured by breakages in the DNA seen in electrophoresis techniques. How the damage is related to the exercise is unclear. What are the biomolecular and/or biochemical causes of the damage? At any rate, the damage to the DNA is not serious, and not tied to any particular disease. The damage seems to be limited to the DNA of leukocytes and other immune system related cells. Doesn't really make sense to me, but then the authors don't have a mechanism relating the "cause" to the "effect", so I stand by my statement that "exercise damages DNA" doesn't make sense. There is damaged DNA after exercise, but I bet there's damaged DNA after eating a hearty meal, too, or after having sex. In fact, as I said before, living causes damage to DNA (do you think DNA is replicated without error?). So in what way was I wrong?

Last edited by Pavonis; November 24 2013 at 02:35 AM.
Pavonis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 09:59 AM   #19
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

Pavonis wrote: View Post
I did mean 50% because neither Kirk had the correct DNA so nice Kirk had half his DNA missing or switched on incorrectly - that must mean that 50% is of his DNA was doubled up i.e. replicated incorrectly (on my theory at least) with the second Kirk getting a different 50% doubled up through replication. With Thomas Riker it's harder to tell since they were genetically exact at the point of creation so it's possible that one was entirely replicated. Which one was always a matter for debate.
What? "Neither Kirk had the correct DNA"? What does that mean? DNA codes for RNA, which codes for proteins, which are expressed in cells as...ah, hell, forget the details. We're not made out of DNA. It's just one small component of our bodies.

In both "The Enemy Within" and "Second Chances", the duplicates are indistinguishable from the originals. That means they must have the same masses, too. That requires a doubling of everything about the transporter subject, i.e., a 100% increase, not a 50% increase.

So you mean 100%, not 50%.
Nope I mean as far as Kirk goes, IMO each Kirk was 50% ish real Kirk and 50% replicated Kirk.

Roughly 50% of our behaviour is caused by our DNA and the other 50% is caused by our life experiences. Since each Kirk had the same life experiences it seems to me that the two most likely causes of the difference in behaviour were disease of some kind (and I don't recall a medical exam confirming either Kirk was diseased, which would have been treatable) or each had a portion of incorrectly replicated DNA. Since this research was not around in the sixties, I would not expect it to feature as part of the plot but we do know that the transporter can screw with DNA (Tuvix) so as far as hypotheses go I'm happy with it.

I'm not telling you what you should believe but I definitely believe that each Kirk was 50% replicated.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 10:27 AM   #20
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

Since there's as much replicated matter as original matter, it's a 100% increase in mass. That goes however it's spread out between them.

I'll illustrate with example numbers.

Original Kirk = 80kg (say).

Good Kirk = 40kg matter + 40kg replicated matter
Evil Kirk = 40kg matter + 40kg replicated matter
That's 80kg matter plus 80kg replicated matter, for a total of 160kg.

There is as much replicated matter (80kg) added to the original Kirk as he originally had matter (80kg), so it's a 100% increase. 80kg = 100% times 80kg.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 11:14 AM   #21
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

LOL.

80kg x 50% = 40kg

Good kirk = 40kg + 40kg replicated = 50% replicated. I was talking about adding to each individual transportee (singular) but you are right, technically Kirk was a single transportee split into two so while each person who stepped off the pad was 50% replicated overall there would be 100% replicated material.

We're saying the same thing in different ways though. Let's leave it there and not be too pedantic. The concept of transporters is controversial enough as it is! ;P
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 12:15 PM   #22
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
LOL.

80kg x 50% = 40kg

Good kirk = 40kg + 40kg replicated = 50% replicated. I was talking about adding to each individual transportee (singular) but you are right, technically Kirk was a single transportee split into two so while each person who stepped off the pad was 50% replicated overall there would be 100% replicated material.

We're saying the same thing in different ways though. Let's leave it there and not be too pedantic. The concept of transporters is controversial enough as it is! ;P
Yeah, you got it. The problem was that there was only one transportee to begin with.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13 2013, 11:05 AM   #23
shipfisher
Commander
 
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

In the Bill Theiss book "The Making of Star Trek" I remember the reference to having matter transmission devices on ships at the level of technology otherwise displayed in Trek was akin to Cleopatra's barge on the Nile packing an electron microscope. The transporter concept was a product of limited effects budgets and dramatic pacing. A camera trick involving sprinkling aluminium dust was much cheaper and moved the story along faster than a shuttlecraft landing sequence (and the full-size shuttlecraft mock-up hadn't been completed before the pilots and first episodes were shot).

The most recent plot-driven abuse of the transporter concept was CumberKahn's personal device delivering him to the klingon homeworld after shooting up a few fed big-wigs in ST:ID. I guess Section 31 got hold of some gear from someone like Gary Seven's mates.

Just to be clear - count me in the "transport is murder" camp, if for nothing more than the sake of technical consistency.
shipfisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13 2013, 11:29 AM   #24
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

shipfisher wrote: View Post
The most recent plot-driven abuse of the transporter concept was CumberKahn's personal device delivering him to the klingon homeworld after shooting up a few fed big-wigs in ST:ID. I guess Section 31 got hold of some gear from someone like Gary Seven's mates.
Well, let's see, no. It came from the previous film, Star Trek (2009). Spock Prime brought transwarp beaming into the new timeline from the Prime Universe, where it had originally been invented by Mr. Scott. That it was the same transwarp beaming used in STXI was, in fact, stated in STID.

With all the powerful technology that Scott had had to deal with over the years, including the Triskelion device besides just Gary Seven's, it would have been less plausible if Scotty Prime had never gotten a clue.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13 2013, 08:52 PM   #25
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

Coach Comet wrote: View Post
Well, let's see, no. It came from the previous film, Star Trek (2009). Spock Prime brought transwarp beaming into the new timeline from the Prime Universe, where it had originally been invented by Mr. Scott. That it was the same transwarp beaming used in STXI was, in fact, stated in STID.

With all the powerful technology that Scott had had to deal with over the years, including the Triskelion device besides just Gary Seven's, it would have been less plausible if Scotty Prime had never gotten a clue.
The use of long distance teleportation as a plot device for aliens of the week is only just about bearable IMO. Making it generally available to our heroes or the Federation is a plot-busting annoyance. Then trying to put it back in the box and say we'll ignore this from now on is dire in the extreme. If you are going to introduce plot-busting technology then build in a limitation off the bat.

I don't think that saying, this is really dangerous is sufficient, since it's usage to date has show limited negative consequences. They could have done this by overloading and destroying the transporter equipment on Delta Vega. It was a one off and 23rd century tech just can't cut it. If Keenser died in the explosion you have another reason not to try again.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631

Last edited by Pauln6; December 13 2013 at 10:10 PM.
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13 2013, 09:34 PM   #26
shipfisher
Commander
 
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

Any trek tech introduced for the sake of TV/film production expediency (inertial dampers also come to mind, letting starships behave like sound stages - no padded surfaces or grab-rails required) or dramatic/plot-driven reasons (ie. poorly written reasons) - I'll admit I've got a hate-on for.

Transwarp beaming may have come from 2387 prime in story, but we're getting Star Trek converted to StarGate Lite here. Call me a bit of a purist, but I like my trekking done with an actual need for starships.
shipfisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14 2013, 12:01 PM   #27
The Green Mushroom
Commander
 
Location: United States
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

2takesfrakes wrote: View Post
I am not a physicist, but I suspect that a transport could work if, instead of converting you to energy, you entered the chamber and space folded around you.
So that, instead of you being beamed somewhere, somewhere is being brought to you, in effect. Maybe it amounts to the same thing, in the end. Who knows? Hopefully, no Spice is necessary ...
I am on the side of Death by Transporter as I have no other way to describe what happens to a person when he gets chopped into googleplexes of tiny little pieces and a photocopy of him appears somewhere else.

But if they made the transporter as a spin off of the warp drive where they simply warped space so that Points A and B go from being <24,0000 miles apart to a few inches apart, I could easily live with that and use such a system.
The Green Mushroom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14 2013, 02:09 PM   #28
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

I agree with both the last two posts. The problem with space warp transporting is the energy requirements required to warp space to that degree (it would be exponentially more energy dependent like warp drive). Gary 7's transport was likely this kind of transport but it was nonetheless intercepted by a standard transporter. Perhaps this suggests that both use the same dimension as a medium.

Trek is so inconsistent though. Some have speculated that dylithium is a wibbly wobbly amplifier that boosts anti-matter output. More sophisticated amplifiers would boost energy output so races such as the Kevlans could travel faster and all Federation ships would need is stronger structural integrity fields to withstand warp stress. Presumably transporting a humanoid by warping space would require a strong structural integrity field to prevent the transportee from being ripped apart as well.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14 2013, 08:43 PM   #29
shipfisher
Commander
 
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

I also agree with the last two posts. A system that somehow excites matter temporarily to facilitate transferring or mapping it to another location, without having to crack any atomic bonds (not to mention allowing movement and thought in transit, as is often depicted), I can sorta' not hate so much, or at least with a pathology only slightly worse than Leonard McCoy's. It would also explain why the tech isn't used in warp cores instead of M:AM reactions for that whole converting matter to energy thing.

I've always thought it was ludicrous that only "terrorists" in the TNG era were reckless enough to use those DNA-damaging dimensional transporters, which seemed to keep them in one piece, and everyone else was happy being annihilated more completely than any dedicated weapons system usually did, just to get photocopied across the last hundred miles or so of a hundred light-year journey.

And don't get me started on "bio-filters": "Don't worry Commander Riker, you might be a venereal disease infested mess after your fun on Risa, but the reproduction of you we make from your pattern will be squeaky clean! Oh, and perhaps a lipo-deletion, dermal tuck, colonic and a beard trim on the new you sir?"

Last edited by shipfisher; December 14 2013 at 09:09 PM.
shipfisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14 2013, 11:13 PM   #30
Olive, the Other Reindeer
Vice Admiral
 
Olive, the Other Reindeer's Avatar
 
Location: scotpens
Re: Would a real life transporter technically be 'murder' ?

shipfisher wrote: View Post
In the Bill Theiss book "The Making of Star Trek" I remember the reference to having matter transmission devices on ships at the level of technology otherwise displayed in Trek was akin to Cleopatra's barge on the Nile packing an electron microscope. The transporter concept was a product of limited effects budgets and dramatic pacing. A camera trick involving sprinkling aluminium dust was much cheaper and moved the story along faster than a shuttlecraft landing sequence (and the full-size shuttlecraft mock-up hadn't been completed before the pilots and first episodes were shot).
The Making of Star Trek does discuss the dramatic and storytelling reasons for creating the transporter, though the Cleopatra's barge analogy is nowhere mentioned. Perhaps you got it from some other source? In any case, TMOST was written by Stephen E. Whitfield. Bill Theiss was Star Trek's costume designer.
__________________
“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”
Olive, the Other Reindeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.