if the transporter works by creating a copy of a person , the original being killed in the process why couldn't i transport to a starship get off and then just start re- mayeizing myself over and over again: i know there is president in one of the star trek episodes . i am looking for it.
transporter army
- Thread starter soornge
- Start date
I think the Federation "president" appeared in a DS9 episode. IIRC, Robert Foxworth was in the ep.
Seriously, I don't think the transporter is a cloning machine. Somebody woulda tried it.
I think the Federation "president" appeared in a DS9 episode. IIRC, he lived in France.
I believe he meant "precedent".
I've read that IF a transporter were ever to be created IRL, it would work this way, but I don't recall it ever being stated that the transporters in Star Trek work like that.
It doesn't, it sends the people on the transporter pad to the destination without creating a "copy."
Or he lives in Omaha Nebraska and his small office window faces a brick wall on the other side of a alley, so he has a lovely hologram of Paris on the blank wall behind his desk.I think the Federation "president" appeared in a DS9 episode. IIRC, he lived in France.
(did someone mean "precedent?")
Huh?
write : thats why i am thinking if i vot on picards enterprise : just because it has the most transporter pads: i could seriously over run the ship with my clone ..well not my clone because i am still kind of small .. but clones in just like 39 minutes if i just kept beaming myself in :
i have a broken iphone screen and my iphone often likes to pick words for me and i dont always see them : so apoligize for the errors : fat thumbs, broken screen and no friends
Well, except for all the actual on-screen evidence to the contrary. (Riker II says hi, by the way.)
Some people want to rule riker's case out as some kind of exception but their explanations are wobbly at best.
I think it was Barclay who once said that you're taken apart and sent to the destination, then put back together again. I think they even talk about it in Enterprise as well. Not sure what on-screen evidence you're talking about.
Riker II just like many things in Star Trek was just an accident and should never really have happened.
And someone else was right about a "real transporter" would create a copy and destroy the original. I'm no physicist, but it has to do with entangled particles.
that was kind of meanWell, your transporter idea of cloning yourself would take care of that issue.
right: it has tondo with a fundement of quantim mechanics that identical dupicate particles can not exist in two places at the exact same time. dont attack me over this ststement please i am not a physicist and there are many white papers and articles online explaining it better . i am really exhausted of being attacked about everything i say when just trying to have a fun conversation with peoplemof a similar i terest so please no hate mail if i miss stated the principle.
And yet it did. Not to mention all the other magical things the transporter has done over the years. Kirk being split into two (and no, he wasn't dying because each one only had half as many particles as the original), ages being reversed, characters being reset to older data, the existence of replicators which are based off transporter technology, and so on and so forth.
It's clear the transporter does destroy you and creates a duplicate at the other end; just because the duplicate also (usually) happens to have the same building blocks as the original doesn't mean it doesn't. Especially since there's literally -no- other way for it to work as depicted. None, zip, zilch, nada.
Wasn't my intent, but you're right, it was, and I'm sorry. Just hazing the newbie.
:-*Similar threads
