Welcome to Star Trek Simulation Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
rosetto

Don’t shoot! Too many flaws in the canon!

There have been many people who have attempted to speculate the transporter of STAR TREK works. There are also those who simply remark that it doesn't really matter. It was a plot advancer and nothing more. And so what is wrong with a bit of fantasy? I have always asserted that the reason that I have followed STAR TREK longer and farther than any other science (fiction or otherwise) is that it strived to base all of its technology in science. Unfortunately, over the years and after the passing of the Great Bird, much of this ideology has been lost. What was 'canon' is no longer 'canon' because some writer made something else up and the checks & balances that used to be are no longer there and so the 'canon' was adapted and changed to fit this new idea. This is EXACTLY what has happened in the case of the transporter.

 

In the movie, 'The Fly', which was originally filmed before STAR TREK existed, the main character has developed a method of teleportation. In the remake of that movie starring Jeff Goldblum, his character describes that he has to teach his program to be "driven crazy" by flesh to enable his device to work on living tissue. This is a key point. In the adaptations of the STAR TREK canon they used this and called it the Heisenburg Compensator. Unfortunately, what was not completely thought through was the amount of memory that would be required to store the quantum state of every subatomic particle in a human body or the amount of energy that would be required to disintegrate and the reintegrate one. When these numbers are considered the entire concept becomes incredibly impractical and silly.

 

Yes. I understand that this paper that I am about to reference has been classified as 'NON-CANON' and has been refuted many times over by on-screen performances which have been used to define what is and is not canon. However, I argue again, what has been accepted as canon is where the issues lie. A much more feasible concept was proposed by a STAR TREK fan back in 1988 that fits perfectly into the canon and seems quite practical. In his descriptions of this technology there exists only one leap of faith which cannot presently be scientifically proven or disproven. It is his description of exactly what is meant by 'sub-space' and what Zephram Cochran had discovered. This paper also follows a development process that occurs with every new discovery where one application slowly builds and leads to additional applications.

 

In reference to teleportation, the process does not incorporate disintegration or reintegration at all. There is never a point in the process where the object ceases to exist. On the contrary, the object seemingly exists at both the origin and the destination at the same time. First you must imagine an object as simply being a disturbance in the space-time continuum; a bump in a taut sheet. It's there and we see it only because we see or detect the effects this disturbance. If we were to place an identical disturbance elsewhere on that same sheet then we would not be able to tell using our current technology, which was the original. This is impossible, of course. An object cannot be to two places simultaneously. Therefore, although the disturbance is at the destination we see nothing. This is where Cochran's discovery steps in and how ingenuity of his basic concepts led to teleportation. Although the replicated disturbance seems to behave like the original, it isn't the original however there exists a property of this disturbance whose domain resides in sub-space that can be manipulated so that the original becomes the replicated and vise-versa. When the original property is brought from 1 to 0 and the replicated property is simultaneously brought from 0 to 1, the exchange is completed and teleportation is achieved.

 

Thus, by one simply leap of faith another STAR TREK miracle is achieved. But I concede that it is this leap of faith with which so many people issues. Einstein's theory of relativity which is nearly a century old still baffles many laymen. Many of the basic principles today has been misquoted and misinterpreted. This leap of faith to which I refer falls into this realm. These concepts are beyond our current knowledge of what is real and what is not. They explore concepts that involve some properties of matter that have as yet been discovered. THAT is why they don't fit nicely into our current ideology or seemingly break some 'fundamental' laws of conservation. However, when one takes that leap of faith they realize that none of these laws have been broken.

 

Edited by rosetto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of transporters, one of the best logs I've EVER read on the subject was recently posted to the Sky Harbor Aegis boards. I strongly recommend reading it.

 

"If I'm Dead, Will You Send Me a Postcard?"

Lt. Cdr. Scott Coleridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of transporters, one of the best logs I've EVER read on the subject was recently posted to the Sky Harbor Aegis boards. I strongly recommend reading it.

 

"If I'm Dead, Will You Send Me a Postcard?"

Lt. Cdr. Scott Coleridge

 

I'm with you, DJ! In all my years of simming I've never read anything so comprehensive - without being dull - and so profound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and did read that log. It is a very good description of what is currently accepted as 'canon'. However, the concept of actually digitizes, disintegrate and reintegrate living tissue is just too complex and would expend more energy that it takes to propel the vessel at warp. This is what I meant by it deviating from a sound science base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the problem isn't just limited to transporters. In assessing adherence to canon, the essential question is: do I stick with what the series tells me or try an alternate explanation that makes more sense (at least to me)?

 

The answer for a simming community is almost always "stick with the canon". Why? It's like having a dictionary onhand during Scrabble. I may not agree that there are 96 acceptable two-letter word combinations, but they're documented for everyone to see. Oh, I can add a few house rules about what's unacceptable, but unless I document or review each and every one, I may surprise a player and rightfully get called for being "arbitrary" or "unfair".

 

I admit I ignore a couple of outright onscreen canon items like VOY:Threshold and it's overly-simplistic, generally absurd use of the Warp 10 barrier. I tend to ignore "outliers" that are grossly inconsistent with other established canon, like Admiral Morrow's statement (STIII:TSFS) about the Enterprise being "20 years old" in 2285. It ignores established details like Spock serving onboard for 13 years before the five-year mission, wihch itself ended about 15 years before TSFS. But in these cases, there are usually singular episodes or comments that I'm dismissing.

 

With transporters, the series just makes too many repeated references to molecular imaging scanners, matter streams, and pattern buffers to argue that transport doesn't involve the breakdown of the original target. While it's attractive to consider a subspace shunting, with a Boolean moment of here/there, we see numerous onscreen occasions where the beam-out place blows up well before our heroes reappear on the pad - requiring cross-circuiting to B and all. Consider also, the series made mention of an alternate transport method (TNG: The High Ground) called "subspace folding" that sounds a lot like what the referenced paper describes. Frankly, it sounded so good they had to invent a plot device that it's eventually harmful to living tissue so it's not viable long-term.

 

There's also the issue of what "makes sense" to one player versus another. I can't believe it would ever be efficient to use a replicator except to make the most expensive or difficult-to-construct items. You might only have to break covalent electromagnetic bonds to disassemble a person and re-form them, but CHANGING bulk matter into other elements means adding and subtracting strong and weak nuclear forces - the amount contained in a few kilograms of uranium can level and irradiate a city. I like to imagine Treknology that works, but I reach limits where I must finally accede and repeat to myself "it's just a show, I should really just relax."

 

It's even worse when canon itself has irreconcilable (or at least implausible) contradictions. There are multiple fan attempts to explain how warp speeds can be determined, and I don't believe any of them. I've done the math and compared the episodes until I'm convinced: it takes as long as the plot requires.

 

Trek canon is far from perfect and few people are likely to agree to the same content and interpretation (and yes, there's a very real world counterpart there). But it does offer a frame of reference. And from there, as they say, the sky's hardly the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, Trek is a TV show, not a scientific treatise. It gets a lot of credit from me for doing a great deal to remain internally consistent, but it can't be expected to be perfect. So just enjoy it for what it is, play with what you have, and where it doesn't make sense, either work with it or ignore it...trying to force it to fit an exact mold is just asking for an ulcer.

 

Also...I would like to state my agreement on the excellence of that log by Scott. Kudos, Mr. Coleridge. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorehl, thank you.

 

Your response tells me that you actually comprehended my original post. (relax people. I'm saying that Sorehl gave indirect reference to concepts in the original post while others did not.) I agree that with something as complex and far reaching as STAR TREK (The English Language, Monopoly, physics, etc.) there needs to be resources that site and record the details so that anyone may reference and use them. This is why the STAR TREK canon exists (which I believe but am not certain was another Roddenberry idea. I don't remember any TV show prior to STAR TREK ever mentioning it but perhaps SOAPs use them and they go back to even pre-TV). What doesn't bode well with me, in general, are the changes; what used to be 'canon' is no longer 'canon'. In my opinion, where schematics and deck plans are concerned, nothing beats Franz Joseph's attention to detail. However, I can also understand why FASA lost their contract to produce STAR TREK gaming material as STAR TREK was never militant. The issue with using 'performance' (what is shown in episode or movie) is that the canon may not have be strictly adhered by the producer or director for what ever reason. The end result when this occurs is that the canon must suffer and change.

 

So, which came first? The Canon or the Show? LOL

 

The other, much more understandable change, is that we have changed. Our technology has advanced. Some of its advancements have even been toward the realisaton of things shown to us through science fiction. The obvious and common place items are the 'flip open' cell phones and the automatically openning doors (many people miss the latter one but the truth is before STAR TREK we didn't have them). The other major change has been in the world of computers. In the TOS episodes you never see anyone with a complex remote interface (beyond the yeoman's clipboard). TNG and later series these things have become commonplace.

 

 

 

 

BTW My SCRABBLE 'house rule' is that a dictionary is used only in the case of a challenge to a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorehl, thank you.

 

Your response tells me that you actually comprehended my original post. (relax people. I'm saying that Sorehl gave indirect reference to concepts in the original post while others did not.)

 

 

That's because Sorehl is MUCH smarter than most of us. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion -i agree with everyone,s point of view...just like vulcan tos had no moon then in the movies it did--just injoy the differences in startrek -have fun...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna go with : Folks don't get your starfleet regulation underwear in a bunch it's a TV show and this is a GAME!!

 

 

 

NB : Coleridge's log was pretty amazing ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should also keep in mind that the writers of the show are just that - writers not scientists. I'm sure if they could explain just how transporters and replicators work (and make them work for real) they wouldn't be working as writers.

 

I like Star Trek as much for its consitency as for its attempt at being realistic. But it is, and will always remain, a science FICTION show. It is meant to entertain, not teach us how to advance our technology.

 

While I, too enjoy discussions about the viability of the technology depicted in Star Trek, I am always mindful that whatever technology was introduced, there might be a reason beyond mere science (plot devices, budget reasons etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorehl, thank you.

 

Your response tells me that you actually comprehended my original post. (relax people. I'm saying that Sorehl gave indirect reference to concepts in the original post while others did not.)

 

Excuse me for maybe coming off as not quite as sophisticated as you or Sorehl. I will freely admit that my knowledge of physics is limited. But the issue at hand isn't really a physics one. It's rather about what we work with here and what we're supposed to use as a basis for our games. I agree with Sorehl. Many things mentioned in the shows and series don't add up, it's only understandable that writers of a show sometimes slip and don't do the maths right like they did with dates every now and then. But I think we always have to keep in mind that in TV shows science doesn't only have to make sense, it also has to serve its role in a plot. It might very well be that there are better and more feasible ways to make a transporter work, but frankly, if you have so many references to the actual technology in Star Trek, then why change it? Because something else makes more sense? I really don't feel like sitting in front of my TV going "why, that makes no sense at all" all the time. I think, in order to enjoy fiction it's sometimes absolutely necessary to just accept that whatever's happening somehow fits into the story. So, unless it's blatantly and painfully stupid I just go with what the writers tell me is happening (or the GMs). Sometimes the leap of faith has to be about trusting the people who are in charge to make a plot enjoyable.

 

Fin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorehl, thank you.

 

Your response tells me that you actually comprehended my original post.

 

I comprehended your post perfectly well; I simply did not feel it necessary to respond with an extended essay when my point only required a few sentences.

 

This is why the STAR TREK canon exists (which I believe but am not certain was another Roddenberry idea. I don't remember any TV show prior to STAR TREK ever mentioning it but perhaps SOAPs use them and they go back to even pre-TV).

 

As a matter of fact the term goes back to the Bible. ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should also keep in mind that the writers of the show are just that - writers not scientists.

 

Exactly my point. In the book 'Inside STAR TREK' by Herb Solow & Bob Justman, they site that many of the writers of TOS were upset by Gene's constant rewrites of their works where they didn't fit the established canon or his scientific advisors had pointed out some flaws in the logic or consistency. Most people do not know to what extent TOS went to maintain this.

 

This is what I feel was lost in the later series (VOY/ENT) and in my humble opinion one of the main reasons why popularity had fallen off.

 

I'm a creator. I love making things up! However, I learned a long time ago that it is more beneficial to all to use common building blocks in your creativity so that your concepts are realized and appreciated by they masses. This lesson goes back to an architectural competition in which I participated and came in 2nd. We were given cost, time & material restraints and asked to design a suitable home. The reason I took second place was that the first place winner had actually finished more drawings than I did. Gosh. That was over 30 years ago! LOL

 

(unravelling undergarments)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, the problem isn't just limited to transporters. In assessing adherence to canon, the essential question is: do I stick with what the series tells me or try an alternate explanation that makes more sense (at least to me)?

 

The answer for a simming community is almost always "stick with the canon". Why? It's like having a dictionary onhand during Scrabble. I may not agree that there are 96 acceptable two-letter word combinations, but they're documented for everyone to see. Oh, I can add a few house rules about what's unacceptable, but unless I document or review each and every one, I may surprise a player and rightfully get called for being "arbitrary" or "unfair".

 

I tend to do the opposite in my play, actually. While I've probably seen close to 75% of the Star Trek material out there I haven't exactly been meticulous in storing all of the information gleaned from every episode I watch, or spending long hours scrolling through the pages of memory alpha. However, I do like to think that I have a fairly extensive knowledge of the sciences and I'll admit that I do enjoy showcasing that knowledge in my simming and logging. In fact, I've become pretty well renowned on some of my sims as being one to engage in the notorious activity known as technobabble (much to some of my GM's chagrin). What I fail to realize at times is that technical explanations and entertainment don't generally mix, which causes me to go overboard with my detail. The fact of the matter is most people don't find in depth technical explanations entertaining. Sure, among us geeks it's definitely enjoyable to discuss it, but there's a good reason why the non-fiction section at Borders is located in the back of the store. Science doesn't sell.

 

Take the television show Big Bang Theory for example. For those of you who haven't seen it, it's a sitcom about a group of physicists who are stereotypically nerdy. It's a pretty good show, if you want a good laugh, but that's besides the point. Anyway, because they're physicists there is quite a bit of scientific trivia strewn about each episode, most of which any well-to-do geek like myself is pretty household stuff. But for a show about physicists there's very little actual physics involved. The same goes for some other science fiction shows/movies I can name, such as Eureka, Stargate, or the time honored 2001 A Space Odyssey.

 

Anyway, my point is this: There are always going to be inconsistencies between what's written in a science fiction film and what's actually true (or accepted) in reality. Fiction writers aren't physicists (with some few exceptions of course), they're generally at best just enthusiasts. And I highly doubt they have time (or the desire) to go back over every episode and ensure that there's no inconsistencies with what's already been written. However there is one thing that is generally consistent in canon, and that is history or the series of events. If you're going to rely on canon for anything, I say it should be that. The technical stuff you can just handle the way most science fiction TV show writers handle it. Make up something that sounds technical (like the Heisenberg Compensator) and just roll with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While were on the subject. I love these cannons at Fort Ticonderoga.

 

Cannons2.jpg

 

::not into manufactured controversy::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just saw more good points mentioned on this subject-remenber startrek had no budget,first pilot or second filmed in a stage where it did have sound proofing <USED BEFORE SOUND>-cast could NOTgo to the bathrooms,sets and props taken from mission impossable trash,and they<DESILU>was broke,profit was the key not intelligent shows <1966-1969>in fact the frengi was the big wigs of paramount <GENE go the last word on the subject<PROFIT/PARAMOUNT....but from that show we got drs.scientists,working on hypos,tricorders,matter and other ideas.<<WHAT would gene say now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0