''YOU were on the ENTERPRISE!!!"
- Thread starter Rowdy Roddy McDowall
- Start date
I no longer think the Transporter disassembles your atoms, to say nothing of converting your body to energy for transmission. The more carefully you think about those ideas, the less plausible they become. I prefer to see that stuff as figurative rather than literal dialogue.
I think the Transporter just creates a subspace wormhole, a physics shortcut, and shoots you through it like a spitball. Thus beaming a thousand miles feels like a distance of three paces, and you remain whole and aware the entire time.
This explains "That Which Survives" and The Wrath of Khan, and more importantly it does away with some unsolvable technical problems associated with putting atoms back together so accurately that the human mind itself is perfectly re-created, even though the supposed disassembly took place down on the planet so far away. Try cataloging the energy states of a person's subatomic particles from that distance ("the telescope problem"). You can't.
I think the Transporter just creates a subspace wormhole, a physics shortcut, and shoots you through it like a spitball. Thus beaming a thousand miles feels like a distance of three paces, and you remain whole and aware the entire time.
This explains "That Which Survives" and The Wrath of Khan, and more importantly it does away with some unsolvable technical problems associated with putting atoms back together so accurately that the human mind itself is perfectly re-created, even though the supposed disassembly took place down on the planet so far away. Try cataloging the energy states of a person's subatomic particles from that distance ("the telescope problem"). You can't.
I have always preferred the idea that the transporter is like a stargate and transports you whole rather than disassembling you.
You aren't the only one. On my next birthday I'll be older than Shatner was in TVH.
Did I miss something? Or is this a second Brain Brophy thread?
Co-mod of the Picard forum says: Wuh?
Well of course I can't. I don't have a Heisenberg compensator.
Kirk and Spock have developed special senses and even limited movement while transporting simply due to being transported several times a week for five years. 
Experience counts in training your mind and body while transporting. D'Amato and even Sulu have not been transported as much, so, their ability to see, think, talk, and move are not as developed as Kirk for example.
Experience counts in training your mind and body while transporting. D'Amato and even Sulu have not been transported as much, so, their ability to see, think, talk, and move are not as developed as Kirk for example.
It's not laziness per se it's a production cost saving measure. The more actors you being down the more money you have to pay. The TOS production budget was cut year to year. By the third year they barely had any extras walking in the corridors so it looked like the ship had no crew left.
There's a saying I've heard to the effect that 'You know you're getting old when you're older than the President'.
That became true for me when Obama was President but then after he left office it was no longer true again.
Robert
Kirk moving his head, and later having a conversation, is merely a good way to make explicit what production realities imply anyway. It's impossible for the actors to assume the exact same pose at both ends of the transporter process (unless it's the same set, in assorted "mirror universe" or "malevolent illusion" adventures), so we have to accept that movement "within the beam" is possible.
And the more coherence in there, the better for the machine. If the blob being pushed through walls and space retains more of it, the machine needs less data or computing power to put Humpty Dumpty together again. And while being beamed has been defined as oblivion of some sort (say, Chekov in "Day of the Dove"), it hasn't been defined as temporary death or total immobility as such. If it were that, Scotty could wait forever in the beam in "Relics" rather than risk a "cycle" that might incrementally age him till he died of starvation, and the hinted degradation would make less sense in a static situation than in a dynamic one, too.
But that's just the technobabble side. Studio reality calls for the ability to lift a leg when beaming to an uneven surface, and going with that all the way is a win-win approach.
Timo Saloniemi
And the more coherence in there, the better for the machine. If the blob being pushed through walls and space retains more of it, the machine needs less data or computing power to put Humpty Dumpty together again. And while being beamed has been defined as oblivion of some sort (say, Chekov in "Day of the Dove"), it hasn't been defined as temporary death or total immobility as such. If it were that, Scotty could wait forever in the beam in "Relics" rather than risk a "cycle" that might incrementally age him till he died of starvation, and the hinted degradation would make less sense in a static situation than in a dynamic one, too.
But that's just the technobabble side. Studio reality calls for the ability to lift a leg when beaming to an uneven surface, and going with that all the way is a win-win approach.
Timo Saloniemi
The contracted cast also get pay bumps every season, so the budget shrunk as the cast costs escalated.
I haven't been older than a President yet, but Obama was close.
There's also times when someone is beamed in a sitting position and ends up standing on arrival, so apparently the transporter is smart enough to make someone materialize in an appropriate position for the setting.
Weird. The one time I forgot which exact cars I passed and which zebra crossings had cyclists waiting and what the quality of light was like for the past five or so minutes of driving... ended in a crash brought about by a mysterious blacking out. I seem to be unable to turn off the visual recorder and gyrocompass for the most part.
Now, the audio recorder... Forgetting what I was just told is much simpler. And getting simpler by the day.
Timo Saloniemi
Now, the audio recorder... Forgetting what I was just told is much simpler. And getting simpler by the day.
Timo Saloniemi
The other regulars were honestly 'day players'. In the 60s; if you weren't in the episode, you didn't get a paycheck. All thir contract stated is they were guaranteed to appear in at least X number of episodes per season - but if they were called and declined an episode (which Nichelle Nichols and George Takei did on occasion, no they weren't paid <-- and that decline still counted as one of the contracted episodes. So yes, at that time, including any of the other 'regulars did up the costs.
There is only one Brian Brophy thread, all threads stem from that thread both forwards and backwards in time, and are on a metaphysical level, Brian Brophy threads, like a Tholian Web getting drunk and hanging out with the Crystalline Entity. The question is not, "Why did Brian Brophy not return?" but rather, why did you not see him coming and going. After all.. "YOU were on the Enterprise!"
If you're in the landing party, you're in the episode (and getting paid for it).
Similar threads
