We know that the human brain is an imperfect memory storage device. Mess around with the chemistry of a brain -- through disease, trauma, or otherwise -- and memories can be changed or erased. This has been proven. Why should one consider it likely that observable physical evidence in the world had changed by interaction with another universe, but the brain's electro-chemical pathways remain unchanged? You are not talking about science, but some kind of caricature of it. Science is a process of questioning, observing, testing, predicting and skeptically evaluating evidence, which is by its very essence open to revision. In your post you point out that quantum science is looking into multiple universe theories. But, if something in that field is proven, with evidence and verifiable predictions and observations, that would become the very "mainstream science" which you have called out as arrogant above.
I would replace "likely" with "possible". I certainly don't deny the many things that go on inside the human brain....I am saying that should not be adhered to as the only possible explanation. Skepticism is necessary and healthy....but when that tips over into arbitrarily dismissing something with no sound basis to do so, that is a problem. Then it is no longer skepticism....it is biased dictating.
On the other hand, accepting that anything is possible is not how science or rationalism works. If I misplace my pencil, I'm going to assume that it fell behind the couch before rushing to the assumption that it accidentally fell into another dimension, was swallowed up by a microscopic black hole, or carried off by leprechauns. I also have a better chance of finding my lost pencil that way. Some explanations are simply more plausible than others. Let's not confuse science fiction with reality. Scully was always wrong on THE X-FILES, but only because that was a TV show. In real life, Scully would be proving Mulder wrong all the time.
Anything is possible, until it is definitively proven to be absolutely impossible....and that's a very tall order. Rationalism works for most 'ordinary' things in day-to-day life. I say leave the door open for things that are not yet adequately understood....what science should be all about. What seems bizarre, irrational, or strictly in the realm of science-fiction today may not be viewed that way by some point in the future.
So going back to the original question...it would have meant that I would NOT have seen the movie, not had my favorite happy meal (and I think the first Happy Meal with licensed material/entertainment tie in), and would have killed my interest I. star Trek . I was 7 at the time. Probably would have killed Trek, and no new TV series.
I don't know - I've looked behind my couch before. Given the crap that seems to accumulate there I'm not going to rule out the possibility that it is another dimension that accumulates stuff. I'm sure some of the stuff that gets behind there isn't mine. Maybe your pencil is there?
As in the classic Twilight Zone episode, "Little Pencil Lost." Feel free to help yourself to the pencil. It's on me.
I think if TMP had been R-rated, then we would have seen the result of the transporter accident at the beginning, and it would have been quite gruesome. Kor
Sonak would've merged with a fly in the transporter and the rest of TMP would've been a horror movie.
"We'll be using the same characters and the same actors. Also, i'd like to keep a PG rating. There's no point in just arbitrarily doing a film that would cut out millions of ticket sales." —Gene Roddenbeery, Penthouse Interview by Linda Merinoff Published March 1976 (link) In said interview he says, "...the human adventure is just beginning."
In all the discussions made about the transporter accident in TMP, was it ever pointed out about the oddity of the transport independent of the failure? The one thing I never understood from ST-TMP is that it appeared there were 2 different transporter systems working simultaneously. That didn't make any sense to me. Either the Enterprise transporter system retrieves, or the Starbase transporter sends. Not both at the same time. If the Enterprise is doing the retrieving, then there wouldn't be any "active signal" from the Starbase to be boosted. And if the Starbase was doing the sending, the patterns would be under their complete control--nothing the Enterprise transporter room would have to do. So why would Rand even have to be at the controls? Doesn't make sense. I would also expect that standard protocol on transporter use between ship and starbase is that the starbase would always be the sender or retriever of items/people being transported, as it would have a more "robust" system than the starship (meaning more extensive power backups, pattern buffer size, etc).
I think TMP was, in some small way, trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Why does anybody transport to a transporter pad? It must ordinarily be safer. I think phrases like boost your matter gain give us an indication that part of a transportee leaks away with every transport and is replaced by matter replicated from the pattern on file. Too much replicated matter and you have health issues. Transport too often and you have health issues. Transport site to site and you leak more than pad to pad. Scramble the pattern mid way through and you can't add enough replicated matter to save them.
i wonder if it's leakage so much as just plain perceived safety. Having things go through the machine would theoretically be safer than being recreated by the beam alone. Also, since they are at Earth, there must be a LOT of other waves (light, radio) that could cause problems .. like radio waves too close to each other on earth and then you can hear bits from TWO radio stations. The starbase beam goes to the Enterpise's "antenna" and then ENterprise takes it from there.
Yes but safer how? What effect is being mitigated? I always thought the leakage point also goes some way to explain how transporter doubles are created, somehow surviving despite both being 50% replicated matter.
Safer because the reconstruction is managed right there....shorter distance, away from any waves that could disrupt anything. You have equipment monitorting the reconstruction, and can take back the molecules and hold them if a problem arises
But what I mean is, by disruption, I think you are talking about either reconstructing them in the wrong order or losing information on the way, which is pretty much the same thing I mean as leakage (leaking information necessary for reconstruction). Although the dangers of intra ship beaming in Day of the Dove are cited as the danger of being materialised in a bulkhead, it seems more plausible that the distortions caused by proximity to a warp core causes the kind of interference you propose, hence a receiving pad is much safer.
That interview makes for an engaging glimpse into Rodenberry's state of mind at that time. He casts himself as a "Jeffersonian ".
I don't get this idea of "leakage". The transporter MUST be 100% correct. There's no margin for error. Because if there are always some errors introduced, there would be a limit on how many times you can be transported before you started to suffer physical issues... if not death. Star Trek does technology in a flawed way. There are signs of immense power and capability in most times, and then in other times limitations that aren't even in place today (like the ability to copy memory and store it elsewhere, like a holodeck program). It's kind of befuddling. Transporter beams are immensely powerful. They displace any other kinds of radiation in the area, because they must provide a completely perfect transmission of the subject being sent. There is no room for error. And that's why there are triple redundant systems. Miles O'Brien goes into some pretty good detail about that in TNG and DS9.