5 ms·
Anyway, why don't they exploit the more powerful potential of that technology ? I'm talking about backups. In the first motion picture, something went wrong wit
by gabrielblack 5y ago
Anyway, why don't they exploit the more powerful potential of that technology ? I'm talking about backups. In the first motion picture, something went wrong with the transporter and a crew member was re-assembled like a Picasso's painting, that was stupid. They could save backups of crew members they are about to transport, I was thinking, and restore them if something goes wrong. They also could, in emergency situation, restore died staff members. Oh, by the way, if I have a red uniform, I refused to be transported on the first unexplored planet without a backup.
- Phenomenit 5y agoDoesn't that imply that the crew then is immortal and everything loses its meaning? There's zero stakes, you can even restore from homebase.
- gabrielblack 5y agoEvery time you are restored a part of your memory is lost ( the events happened between the last backup and the restoration ), this could be the risk. The backup isn't you. Plus, nobody want to die, backup or not backup.
- AndrewOMartin 5y agoWe're playing at sci-fi here, so don't take my response too seriously, but allow me to engage. We know that e=mc^2, and so it's going to take a hell of a lot of energy to make enough mass for another copy of you. The only 'efficient' way to use a transporter therefore is to turn your 'original' body into energy, and use that energy to make the copy at the other end.
- gabrielblack 5y agoI don't think it's a problem in Start Trek universe: they use REPLICATORS to generate meals for the crew (to cook ?). So what's the problem there ? If Einstein is dead in the kitchen, he is dead everywhere. As you tell us, it's fiction, so the whole discussion can't be taken seriously, IMHO ;-)
- AndrewOMartin 5y agoMaybe the food replicators work by transporting the appropriate meals from elsewhere in the galaxy :)