Insects and transporters

[Lt. Cheka Wey]

Do they make sure that there are no flying insects in the area before they beam somebody down to a planet?

It could be quite unpleasent if a fly would disrupt the process.

 

[Timo]

They have to make sure there's no air where they beam people into - having air bubbles inside you when you materialize would be quite deadly!

So, there must exist some way for the transporter beam to push aside whatever matter there is at the destination. If this mechanism can push away air, any flying insects will automatically be removed as well.

If the matter is too much of an obstacle, the transportee will apparently be "rearranged" so that he nicely fits the available space. People standing straight on a transporter platform will materialize with one leg raised if there's a rock under that leg (say, ST2 and Chekov and Terrell's beam-down). Conversely, people lying on uneven ground will materialize lying flat on the level floor of the transporter after beaming up. So, if there's a really big insect at the beam-down spot, Kirk will materialize with his arm around its shoulders, not inside them!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[indolover]

I think this is why they literally say pattern lock.

So if Picard beams down to a planet, only his physical parameters will be beamed up and nothing else. If there were some pathogens and/or microorganisms on his body, then I think the transporter system would recognise them and kill them.

 

[_C_]

One should hope they watch out for bugs!

 

[T J]

"Welcome back ensign... AHHHHHHH! AHHHHHHH! AHHHHHHH! Kill it now!!

 

[Greg Cox]

As a kid, I lived in fear of a fly getting into the transporter beam.

"Help me . . .."

 

[T'Girl]

Consider the episode Tuvix.

Tuvok, Neelix, one of Kes's lungs and a small plant all combine into a glop that walked and talked.

 

[horatio83]

Do they make sure that there are no flying insects in the area before they beam somebody down to a planet?

It could be quite unpleasent if a fly would disrupt the process.

Confinement beam. More often than not there is actually an idea behind tech speak.

 

[LoneDragon]

Anyone ever consider that a transporter disentigrates you and creates an identical copy of you at the destination? Technically anyone who has ever used a transporter is dead...replaced by a line of clones...if it wasnt so, then how do you explain Thomas Riker?

 

[YellowSubmarine]

"Welcome back ensign... AHHHHHHH! AHHHHHHH! AHHHHHHH! Kill it now!!

That's specieist. That insect that you were going to kill, she is my first officer.

 

[Greg Cox]

Anyone ever consider that a transporter disentigrates you and creates an identical copy of you at the destination? Technically anyone who has ever used a transporter is dead...replaced by a line of clones...if it wasnt so, then how do you explain Thomas Riker?

I remember my college buddies and I staying up to 3 AM one night debating this!

 

[Melakon]

As a kid, I lived in fear of a fly getting into the transporter beam.

"Help me . . .."

 

[T J]

"Welcome back ensign... AHHHHHHH! AHHHHHHH! AHHHHHHH! Kill it now!!

That's specieist. That insect that you were going to kill, she is my first officer.

Buggy creatures gotta die! Remember, it's the homo sapiens only club. Can you imagine the women screaming throughout the ship? Most of the girls I know freak out worse when they see a spider! And don't go near the galley when it's eating... ewwwww!

 

[T'Girl]

Anyone ever consider that a transporter disentigrates you and creates an identical copy of you at the destination?

Given the Federation's (supposed) highly ethical culture, routinely having people step into a device that ends their lives, makes no sense.

Regardless if a perfect copy is subsequently produce, the person who stepped in would be not just dead, but deliberately killed.

Riker and Pulaski didn't even want exact clones made of themselves when they would have continued to live.

 

[Gary7]

Anyone ever consider that a transporter disentigrates you and creates an identical copy of you at the destination? Technically anyone who has ever used a transporter is dead...replaced by a line of clones...if it wasnt so, then how do you explain Thomas Riker?

I think the concept of Thomas Riker was the BIG mistake, where the transporter is concerned.

The original idea that I'd seen most people claim how the transporter works is that your entire molecular pattern is scanned and then very rapidly disassembled, beamed to the target location, and reassembled. So, all of your "bits" are sent to the destination--no "killing and copying" going on (otherwise how could Barclay have his "transporter psychosis" bits, partially aware during the beaming?). That's why all of your clothes and equipment goes too. If not... then "local matter" would have to be sucked up and assembled into the destination beam to compromise you and all of your gear. That doesn't make sense.

So... with Thomas Riker, a duplicate is created.... FROM WHAT?? The matter to compose his body had to come from somewhere. And if transporting means there's just one copy of matter being sent... then either Riker would have reassembled back on the planet or back on the ship, or... two of him assembled each from 50% of his original matter (translucent Riker?).

Thus, I just pass off "Pegasus" as a mistake in the series. They do happen, contradictions that can't be easily explained away without major fan wanking. You just have to take it as an error and move on.

 

[horatio83]

Indeed. The transporter is a way of travel, not a copy machine. If it were you could tie it in with the replicator and create people.

 

[yousirname]

Indeed. The transporter is a way of travel, not a copy machine. If it were you could tie it in with the replicator and create people.

They more or less do that at the end of Lonely Among Us.

But yeah, it's one of those situations where canon's all over the place.

Personally, I can't think of any way the transporter could work that wouldn't mean killing the transportee and recreating them. But we can dismiss that easily enough: If the transporter killed you every time you used it, no-one would use it. Just about everybody uses it, so we can assume it doesn't kill you.

 

[Melakon]

It must have something to do with the mumbo jumbo quantum resolution capabilities that keeps the original's consciousness/soul/spirit intact.

 

[yousirname]

Ah, the frankalpuissantic transquamniomic decoalescence inhibitors. Standard, I should've known.

 

[LoneDragon]

Indeed. The transporter is a way of travel, not a copy machine. If it were you could tie it in with the replicator and create people.

They more or less do that at the end of Lonely Among Us.

But yeah, it's one of those situations where canon's all over the place.

Personally, I can't think of any way the transporter could work that wouldn't mean killing the transportee and recreating them. But we can dismiss that easily enough: If the transporter killed you every time you used it, no-one would use it. Just about everybody uses it, so we can assume it doesn't kill you.

There would be no way to know! You would realize it as you died, then your clone would emerge, none the wiser, thinking that it IS you and always has been.