Does the crew of Discovery understand 32nd technology due to being there a while?

[Christopher]

On the other hand, Scotty also came up with the equation of Transwarp beaming in the late 24th century (which apparently went unused).

Why do people always assume Scotty invented it? Interstellar transporters were known since the TOS era ("The Gamesters of Triskelion," "Assignment: Earth," "That Which Survives") and were featured in TNG: "Bloodlines" and VGR: "Displaced." "Bloodlines" established that the technology was already familiar, just rarely used because it was unsafe and overly power-intensive. And that's basically how it was portrayed in the '09 movie, as a technique too risky to attempt except in an emergency, due to the difficulty of targeting accurately (and Scotty almost drowned as a result).

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Why do people always assume Scotty invented it?

Because Spock said he did? And Scotty had an instructor who said it was impossible until he demonstrated it, albeit at the cost of Admiral Archer's prized beagle.

Interstellar transporters were known since the TOS era ("The Gamesters of Triskelion," "Assignment: Earth," "That Which Survives") and were featured in TNG: "Bloodlines" and VGR: "Displaced." "Bloodlines" established that the technology was already familiar, just rarely used because it was unsafe and overly power-intensive. And that's basically how it was portrayed in the '09 movie, as a technique too risky to attempt except in an emergency, due to the difficulty of targeting accurately (and Scotty almost drowned as a result).

Interstellar or subspace transporters and a transporter that can beam at transwarp velocities across vast interstellar distances with enough accuracy to pinpoint specific rooms on a ship traveling at high warp are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Lord Garth]

On the other hand, Scotty also came up with the equation of Transwarp beaming in the late 24th century (which apparently went unused). We know this from Spock who gave the formula to younger Scotty in the Kelvin Timeline.

Although, by this point, Scotty would've been in the 24th Century for 18 years. So I'm assuming that eventually he acclimated. I'm only comparing Scotty's immediate arrival into the future with Discovery's immediate arrival.

 

[Deks]

Although, by this point, Scotty would've been in the 24th Century for 18 years. So I'm assuming that eventually he acclimated. I'm only comparing Scotty's immediate arrival into the future with Discovery's immediate arrival.

The way the original reply was structured, it seemed like no acclimation was possible for Disco crew... that's why I mentioned Scotty.
Although, Scotty likely acclimated shortly after arriving in the 24th century... and who knows when he perfected his formula for TW beaming... but it would have to be before Spock left for the Kelvin timeline... so probably a year or two (maybe 3) before the Narada was sucked into the past.

Though to be fair, the underlying difference in technology base was not as big as Disco crew is facing.
My guess is that the crew would have to get a crash cource with counselling in those 3 weeks when Disco was being refitted, and then from that point on, they'd be effectively learning on the job... maybe assigned missions that would effectively get them through 32nd century SF academy training and familiarize them with modern science and technology.

I wonder though... Jet Reno mentioned something in S3 that she wanted to realize her lifelong dream of taking them from plasma based to Polaric ion energy systems and she was 'yay close' before power was redistributed.

Would be nice to see if anything came out of that... and whether there would be value in using it vs the 32nd century equivalent.

Its actually possible people from the past had big ideas that they couldn't execute in the past because of lack of resources or available technology.
And if they find themselves in the future where such technology is found in relative abundance or can be made on the spot easily enough, they now have the means of doing so...

 

[Christopher]

Because Spock said he did?

So what? Lots of episodes and movies have single lines that are contradicted by plentiful evidence in the rest of the franchise. It makes no sense for people to hear that one line and let it wipe their memories of all the times that interstellar transporters were used going all the way back to TOS.

Although to be precise, the phrase "transwarp beaming" in the '09 movie did not mean beaming over interstellar distances (though that was part of it), but beaming from a stationary platform onto a ship at warp -- "trans" in the sense of "across" rather than "beyond," i.e. from outside a moving warp bubble to inside it. Although STID forgot that and incorrectly used the phrase to refer to interstellar beaming.

And Scotty had an instructor who said it was impossible until he demonstrated it, albeit at the cost of Admiral Archer's prized beagle.

In 2255, a full 132 years before Spock Prime's era. All the examples of interstellar transporters we saw in TOS, TNG, and VGR were between those dates.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Why do people always assume Scotty invented it?

Same reason everyone says Zefram Cochrane invented warp drive, when other races had been using it for centuries.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

So what? Lots of episodes and movies have single lines that are contradicted by plentiful evidence in the rest of the franchise. It makes no sense for people to hear that one line and let it wipe their memories of all the times that interstellar transporters were used going all the way back to TOS.

So what? So, you were demanding to know why people were "assuming" Scotty invented transwarp beaming, acting as it they were just pulling it out of their ass when they weren't actually assuming and were taking the word of Spock in ST09, who while not infallible by any means is generally considered to be an authoritative figure. They're also taking the word of the consensus of editors on Memory Alpha, which also states Scotty invented transwarp beaming.

The only "So what?" comes with why your personal opinion should trump an onscreen canon reference? You're entitled to think whatever you like, but it doesn't make much sense to come swooping in to lecture people like they're so offbase for taking what's said onscreen and in peripheral references at face value.

Although to be precise, the phrase "transwarp beaming" in the '09 movie did not mean beaming over interstellar distances (though that was part of it), but beaming from a stationary platform onto a ship at warp -- "trans" in the sense of "across" rather than "beyond," i.e. from outside a moving warp bubble to inside it. Although STID forgot that and incorrectly used the phrase to refer to interstellar beaming.

I already included its ability to beam onto a ship at warp in its list of attributes, so you're not being more precise at all.

That it does this additional thing of being able to beam onto a ship at warp doesn't mean it's also not perfectly capable of beaming between planets across interstellar distances, so STID didn't "forget" anything. They intentionally wanted to use the same equation. The point was to show that Starfleet had classified his equation and someone in Starfleet (later revealed to be Admiral Marcus) had handed the information over to Khan. It was supposed to piss Scotty off that his invention was being misused in that way.

In 2255, a full 132 years before Spock Prime's era. All the examples of interstellar transporters we saw in TOS, TNG, and VGR were between those dates.

And as I said, the existence of other interstellar or subspace transporters doesn't preclude Scotty from developing a completely unique version with its own different attributes.

 

[Christopher]

So what? So, you were demanding to know why people were "assuming" Scotty invented transwarp beaming, acting as it they were just pulling it out of their ass when they weren't actually assuming and were taking the word of Spock in ST09, who while not infallible by any means is generally considered to be an authoritative figure.

But -- again -- that requires forgetting the existence of "The Gamesters of Triskelion," "Assignment: Earth," "That Which Survives," "Bloodlines," and "Displaced," at the very least. That is my point. It's not enough to cite the movie alone. The point is that believing the movie requires ignoring all the other evidence.

Look at it this way. If you've known for decades that you have to turn right at a certain intersection to get to the mall, and someone puts up a sign saying you're supposed to turn left to get there, which are you going to believe -- one recent sign, or decades of prior experience? Yes, there are going to be people who have a kneejerk reaction and believe the sign, and yes, it may be understandable why they want to believe the sign, but they are still wrong. Defending why people believe something wrong is a pointless effort. Wrongness is not something to defend, it is something to fix.

They're also taking the word of the consensus of editors on Memory Alpha, which also states Scotty invented transwarp beaming.

Then the editors on Alpha are wrong. It's hardly unprecedented. They claimed for years that Victoria Vetri played Isis in "Assignment: Earth," based only on IMDb making that assumption based on a misinterpretation of a fan conjecture whose own originator admitted that he was far from convinced, and then it turned out that she was actually played by April Tatro.

The only "So what?" comes with why your personal opinion should trump an onscreen canon reference?

Don't be insulting. See above -- I'm talking about hard onscreen evidence dating back to the 1960s.

Really, I don't know why you're taking this so personally. All I'm doing is pointing out the objective fact that interstellar transporters have been depicted many times in Trek long before that movie. That shouldn't be controversial, because it is a simple matter of fact.

And as I said, the existence of other interstellar or subspace transporters doesn't preclude Scotty from developing a completely unique version with its own different attributes.

But it doesn't require it either. "It can't be ruled out" is not proof that something is true. On the contrary -- in order to prove that a hypothesis is correct, you have to rule out every other possibility. That has not been done in this case. And, again, there are more than 40 years' worth of onscreen canonical proof that Starfleet was familiar with interstellar beaming as early as the TOS era.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

But -- again -- that requires forgetting the existence of "The Gamesters of Triskelion," "Assignment: Earth," "That Which Survives," "Bloodlines," and "Displaced," at the very least. That is my point. It's not enough to cite the movie alone. The point is that believing the movie requires ignoring all the other evidence.

Look at it this way. If you've known for decades that you have to turn right at a certain intersection to get to the mall, and someone puts up a sign saying you're supposed to turn left to get there, which are you going to believe -- one recent sign, or decades of prior experience? Yes, there are going to be people who have a kneejerk reaction and believe the sign, and yes, it may be understandable why they want to believe the sign, but they are still wrong. Defending why people believe something wrong is a pointless effort. Wrongness is not something to defend, it is something to fix.

Then the editors on Alpha are wrong. It's hardly unprecedented. They claimed for years that Victoria Vetri played Isis in "Assignment: Earth," based only on IMDb making that assumption based on a misinterpretation of a fan conjecture whose own originator admitted that he was far from convinced, and then it turned out that she was actually played by April Tatro.

Don't be insulting. See above -- I'm talking about hard onscreen evidence dating back to the 1960s.

Really, I don't know why you're taking this so personally. All I'm doing is pointing out the objective fact that interstellar transporters have been depicted many times in Trek long before that movie. That shouldn't be controversial, because it is a simple matter of fact.

But it doesn't require it either. "It can't be ruled out" is not proof that something is true. On the contrary -- in order to prove that a hypothesis is correct, you have to rule out every other possibility. That has not been done in this case. And, again, there are more than 40 years' worth of onscreen canonical proof that Starfleet was familiar with interstellar beaming as early as the TOS era.

It doesn't require forgetting about anything. All of those other methods of interstellar beaming can and do still exist, while Scotty's method exists alongside them and does something new and different, namely: being able to beam the interstellar distance onto a ship moving at high warp, through shields, with enough precision to pinpoint an individual room, and without the negative side effects many of the other methods have (barring beaming into a water slide tube). It's like different forms of communication existing at the same time: text, email, conventional mail, phone call, video chat, beepers, fax, etc.

I'm not taking it personally, I just disagree with you.

 

[Turbo]

Spock says that it's Scotty's equation for transwarp beaming. I don't remember him ever saying that Scotty invented transwarp beaming.

From the perspective of the younger Kirk and Scotty, it might seem like Scotty did invent it as he'd come up with the theory and none of the adventures that Christopher mentioned had occurred yet in the alternate reality (at least for the Enterprise crew in the case of Assignment: Earth) so they didn't necessarily have any reason to know that other races had already invented something similar. As to Bloodlines, well, Scotty's formula could have been a vast improvement on what Bok was using.