Best Blu-ray Deals

Best Blu-ray Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | Price drops  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Japan
Ender's Game (Blu-ray)
$13.00
Reality Bites (Blu-ray)
$9.96
Mallrats (Blu-ray)
$9.96
Planes (Blu-ray)
$13.00
Gravity 3D (Blu-ray)
$19.99
Gravity (Blu-ray)
$12.99
Kid Cannabis (Blu-ray)
$9.96
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (Blu-ray)
$5.99
Weird Science (Blu-ray)
$6.96
Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (Blu-ray)
$12.99
The Jerk (Blu-ray)
$9.96
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Blu-ray)
$10.99
The Goonies (Blu-ray)
$4.99
Pacific Rim 3D (Blu-ray)
$14.99
Brother Bear / Brother Bear 2 (Blu-ray)
$13.99
Robin Hood (Blu-ray)
$14.99
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey 3D (Blu-ray)
$14.99
The Rescuers / The Rescuers Down Under (Blu-ray)
$14.99
Mad Max Trilogy (Blu-ray)
$24.99
Old 05-23-2010, 09:45 AM   #1
BarkingGhost BarkingGhost is offline
Active Member
 
Nov 2009
30519
3
Default Star Trek Universe

From the original series, we learn that the world of Star Trek comes complete with the ability to breakdown the molecules and very atoms that make up the human constituent, convert them into energy, transmit them to another destination, and without needing equipment at the destination convert said energy back into atoms, molecules, etc. into the originally organized unique human.

To me, this shows a level of technological sophistication not really acknowledged in the original series, and furthermore and counter-reinforced in the next generation series when they highlight nanites, tiny robots on the nano-scale.

Why should I find nanites so fascinating years later when I've already proven the ability to a) manipulate at least on the atomic level, b) be able to convert matter <-->energy, and c) being able to uniquely assemble on the atomic level with more than trivial molecular sophistication.

Additionally, I would think since they had the ability of transporting both living and inanimate matter via the transporters, that the less than able means in their day to day lives, both personally and professionally, should have been much more achievable then the obvious limitations exhibited in the original series, and also in the Star Trek movie reboot.

BTW, I am not a Trekkie, and as such my knowledge is somewhat limited in the ST universe. For instance, without divine Trekkie knowledge, I cannot self-answer certain questions such as in the original series, or the rebooted ST movie, did the Romulans not have this ability? What about the Vulcans?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 08:07 PM   #2
Anthony P Anthony P is offline
Blu-ray Champion
 
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
Default

The reason for the transporters in the series was economic and not that the tech would be interesting. In the end it would cost a lot to have a fake ship (be it the ship itself or smaller shuttles) that land on planets. You would need to bring the prop (ship) to every shooting location (since every episode was on a different planet). So the transporter was invented for the show to be a cure for such costs. So realize that it was necessity and not really meant to be there from the get go (but that they fully integrated it with the show)

My understanding is also different then you, the transporter does not send anything, in essence it just reorganizes matter. It takes a human (or something else) brakes it down to the simplest elements ( be it hydrogen, oxygen, carbon or neutrons, protons, electrons) and leaves them, on the other end it reorganizes what is there), Why go to energy and then beam energy? also this explains the episodes where something goes wrong and for example you get two people (good vs bad) or they are sent/ come from a different dimension.

Quote:
To me, this shows a level of technological sophistication not really acknowledged in the original series, and furthermore and counter-reinforced in the next generation series when they highlight nanites, tiny robots on the nano-scale.
don't forget that back in the 60's nanites did not even exist and where not even on the radar of science. Except for a few necessities like the transporter, warp drive and universal translator the show used current tech but advanced it to determine the future. Plus the idea of nanites would have been spooky as hell in the 60's

Quote:
Why should I find nanites so fascinating years later when I've already proven the ability to a) manipulate at least on the atomic level, b) be able to convert matter <-->energy, and c) being able to uniquely assemble on the atomic level with more than trivial molecular sophistication.
Let me ask you this, would you want a surgeon working on you to use , I am sure it can cut as well as a scalpel. But let’s face it, it is a crude tool with no precision and it cant be as easily be manipulated by the surgeon as a scalpel. Same here. A Transporter obviously can combine molecules, but it is not a precision tool. it takes hwat is a few square meters of environment B what and recreates it in environment A, while, for instance, to remove a tumour it would need to take some mm but not touch any of the matter around it.

Also you are missing the fact that for TOS the transporter was relatively new tech and in a way still experimental.
Quote:
Additionally, I would think since they had the ability of transporting both living and inanimate matter via the transporters, that the less than able means in their day to day lives, both personally and professionally, should have been much more achievable then the obvious limitations exhibited in the original series, and also in the Star Trek movie reboot.
no idea what you are trying to say.
Quote:
did the Romulans not have this ability? What about the Vulcans?
they all did, why?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 08:49 PM   #3
BarkingGhost BarkingGhost is offline
Active Member
 
Nov 2009
30519
3
Default

My point is that the science necessary to break down (dissemble) a human was new and in use in the original series. This required manipulation at least on the molecular level, if not atomic or sub-atomic. I would imagine this technology, which was out of the lab, had to have come after testing with non-living things.

So, why is manipulation on the same level by TNG worth bragging about with Wesley Crusher? This seems a bit backwards, no? Also, since the can breakdown any biological life form, and not just humans, should this be able to be manipulated on a more macro-level, like DNA and custom engineer super humans?

After all, who develops a lame technology such as the ability to take Star Fleet Commander apart, re-assemble them and not be able to sidebar that technology to do more things such as genetic engineering.

And while we are at it, since I'm taking the stance that if transporters work then Nanites should have be producible in the ST reboot, and terraforming a la Genesis Nanites.

And any missing conception is thereto not withholding because the ST reboot movie assumes the foregone new knowledge not available back in the 60's.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Movies

Similar Threads
thread Forum Thread Starter Replies Last Post
Star Trek 2009 surpasses all previous Star Trek in adjusted gross $ Movies Havenbull 15 09-20-2011 07:06 AM
Which one has better Special Effect (Star Wars: Episode III or Star Trek)? Movie Polls mugupo 34 06-04-2010 10:09 PM
Carlyle To Star In Stargate Universe Movies blu-mike 2 12-16-2008 06:35 AM
Star Wars or Star Trek on Blu? Wish Lists StoopsFan 2 12-04-2008 11:41 PM
Star Trek vs Star Wars! Movie Polls GreenScar 67 12-04-2008 12:46 PM


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:16 AM.