# FTL speed, Replicators,Holodecks,and Transporter Technology.



## Dave Vicks (Oct 8, 2020)

They laughed at the Wright brothers.


----------



## Dave Vicks (Oct 8, 2020)

Are these technologies feasible?


----------



## Droflet (Oct 8, 2020)

At the present time, no. They've been working on matter transportation for decades with little success. But for all these inventions the future beckons. Perhaps your great, great, great grandchildren will wonder how they ever got by without them?


----------



## Dave Vicks (Oct 8, 2020)

In the 1930' s who would of thought of Smart Phones, &Cray Computers?


----------



## Dave Vicks (Oct 8, 2020)

There should also be heavy investment in Fusion technology.


----------



## Dave Vicks (Oct 8, 2020)

Check out THE ROLLING STONES video She's so Cold.Official promo.


----------



## -K2- (Oct 8, 2020)

@Brian G Turner posted a fantastic video which demonstrates the speed of light...
The speed of light is 186,282 miles per second or *671 million miles per hour*.
This is what you’d actually see (how it would look) in real time as you go out from the sun to Jupiter.
Has to be instantaneous right? Fast forward where you need.






So, though FTL might one day happen, it might not be as impressive as we imagine it. I saw an interesting show where they discussed 'warp speed' and proposed between the engines they warped space/time and used that to propel the ship forward. IMO, that would require some rather amazing structural engineering to keep those engines from ripping off the ship in opposite directions.

Replicators, perhaps, but that will entail stripping atoms down to their base components, scanning them to unfathomable degrees, and then reassembling components as needed...plus there is the whole energy released, energy required issues to work out.

Holodecks I don't buy into. As far as we know you can't project an image onto nothing, let alone have it become solid/real. I also suspect if you could come up with 'replicator' technology to help it along, I'm not so sure you'd want to be inside a chamber smashing together parts of atoms.

Transporters, I doubt most of all. If you are ripped apart (destroyed), then reassembled, are you still the same person or just a clone? Would your mind be exactly the same or just some blank slate (physical is one thing, chemical, electrical another)? More so, you're talking about taking physical objects and magically making them appear however far away as though you folded space. If you can do that, then why tear apart the person in the first place?

Just my opinions...

K2


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 8, 2020)

-K2- said:


> So, though FTL might one day happen, it might not be as impressive as we imagine it. I saw an interesting show where they discussed 'warp speed' and proposed between the engines they warped space/time and used that to propel the ship forward. IMO, that would require some rather amazing structural engineering to keep those engines from ripping off the ship in opposite directions.



It's all a bit of fun these 'warp speed' imaginations, really. We need a theory that can allow FTL. We don't have one at the moment. Part of the reason we don't have one is that we really haven't identified any physical effects that puzzle us and might be explainable by some sort of process that uses FTL. (We do have plenty of observations that puzzle us, I should point out, just none that so far need FTL as an explanation.)

Now it may be that the theory that explains both quantum effects and relatvistic effects will allow FTL in some manner. Who knows? But it may just be impossible. Not everything is possible, as they should have told the Greeks and their heirs trying to square the circle.



-K2- said:


> Replicators, perhaps, but that will entail stripping atoms down to their base components, scanning them to unfathomable degrees, and then reassembling components as needed...plus there is the whole energy released, energy required issues to work out.



We do have replicators today. But DNA etc and animal/plant growth is a bit slow for the purposeof getting an earl grey hot instantly 

Just thinking about it, the effort of trying to remember exactly what atom should go where for a wide range of different objects, that the standard Star Trek replicator does in seconds, seems even further away from us that FTL!



-K2- said:


> Holodecks I don't buy into. As far as we know you can't project an image onto nothing, let alone have it become solid/real. I also suspect if you could come up with 'replicator' technology to help it along, I'm not so sure you'd want to be inside a chamber smashing together parts of atoms.



I agree. It would be much "easier" to hook up your brain directly and letting 'the holodeck' manipulate the sensory neurons directly, say give you something like hyper-vivid lucid dreaming, except you are conscious. It could then build any environment for you to manipulate. Like a more invasive VR, I suppose. This sort of technology seems very possible to me.



-K2- said:


> Transporters, I doubt most of all. If you are ripped apart (destroyed), then reassembled, are you still the same person or just a clone? Would your mind be exactly the same or just some blank slate (physical is one thing, chemical, electrical another)? More so, you're talking about taking physical objects and magically making them appear however far away as though you folded space. If you can do that, then why tear apart the person in the first place?



Also if that's actually how they worked you could refuse to destroy yourself on the transmitter end and just populate the universe with vast armies of clones of yourself.

I'd be happier if 'transporters' were really 'personal wormholes' that allowed you to step from one destination to another. But...that breaks FTL rules of course _and _wormholes are a bit iffy anyway (i.e. I believe that they require negative mass to remain stable and open - whoops, negative mass, another thing that we've never seen, may never see because it's impossible, and is only there because of extrapolation of the mathematics.)


----------



## CupofJoe (Oct 8, 2020)

I quote Douglas Adams...
“Space [...] is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.”


----------



## Wayne Mack (Oct 8, 2020)

*Replicators *Given that three-d printing is a working technology, I would argue that replicators already exist. Food replicators seem to be a viable extension of this technology. 

With water and a suitable set of artificial flavor 'inks', I could see a machine capable of 'printing' drinks ranging from lemonade to coffee. Also there are companies that are using artificial flavorings to (at least try to) replicate meat from plant products. Using a bland protein as an ink combined with a defined flavor palette, it does not seem to be that much of a stretch to print a hot dog. Printing patterns could be used to create structures that would mimic the textures of the modeled source.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 8, 2020)

Wayne Mack said:


> *Replicators *Given that three-d printing is a working technology, I would argue that replicators already exist. Food replicators seem to be a viable extension of this technology.
> 
> With water and a suitable set of artificial flavor 'inks', I could see a machine capable of 'printing' drinks ranging from lemonade to coffee. Also there are companies that are using artificial flavorings to (at least try to) replicate meat from plant products. Using a bland protein as an ink combined with a defined flavor palette, it does not seem to be that much of a stretch to print a hot dog. Printing patterns could be used to create structures that would mimic the textures of the modeled source.


I was thinking about replicating something that was the same as the real thing. What you are talking about, really does not sound appealling    Could one really replicate a well-done steak with it's complex system of muscle and fat tissue with a bit of paste and printing patterns? Or a crunchy full carrot. Cells are not paste.

However, possibly the future may amaze me sooner than I think - who knows what lengths the food companies will go to, to disguise cheap stuff to make it edible. 

Although I'll give you that most modern hot dogs are pretty divergent from real meat, so they should be pretty easy


----------



## Vladd67 (Oct 8, 2020)

3D Printed Food: All You Need to Know in 2021 | All3DP
					

Food is definitely the most delicious application of 3D printing. Let's explore the exciting movement of 3D printed food!




					all3dp.com


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Oct 9, 2020)

Whatever the case, I'm with Bones; I ain't never stepping into a transporter (as commonly described in SF).


----------



## -K2- (Oct 9, 2020)

Ori Vandewalle said:


> Whatever the case, I'm with Bones; I ain't never stepping into a transporter (as commonly described in SF).



Ah, but... For him to heal others like he does (yes, I have thought long and hard about this exact issue over the years), means they're using the exact same transporter technology, localized. IOW, though they might have some technology that's capable of reading vibrational resonance per cell (to determine differences against a baseline), they may very well also scan by tearing apart and putting back together a point or slice at a time. 

In fact, if you transported someone to where they already were in an instant, you'd have an exact map of their body down to a sub-atomic level. If you have that map saved, you could repair any damage, delete any disease, replace an organ, delete foreign chemicals or germs, etc., simply by going back to the baseline. More so, any flaws in DNA could be instantly repaired. Better still, there would be no reason you couldn't revert a person to their physically younger self while still retaining their maturity. Finally, you could alter them and their DNA to not fight it in any way they saw fit.

What might you change about yourself? Me, I'm getting...well never mind.

K2


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 9, 2020)

-K2- said:


> What might you change about yourself? Me, I'm getting...well never mind.
> 
> K2



I was about to make a pithy comment about what a lot of men would change, and probably to ridiculous proportions...but then I thought this is supposed to be a family friendly forum


----------



## Wayne Mack (Oct 9, 2020)

*Holodecks* The problem I have with the Star Trek style holodeck is not only are they visual, as implied by the similarity to hologram, but they are also physically interactive. A more viable alternative would be individual virtual environments.

Anyone who has ever gotten nauseous at an IMax movie understands how much visual information affects people. VR headsets could be extrapolated to less bulky VR goggles and provide the visual experience. It might be possible to eliminate the goggles by have a projector (pair of projectors?) project the scene directly to the individual's eyes. This, however, adds the complexity of the projectors tracking and adjusting to eye movements and head movements. It seems the simplest solution is to have the projectors strapped to the head.

Physical movement could be emulated by having the participant strapped into a stair-stepper unit. The individual could walk without really moving. The stair stepper could also rotate and provide a sense of climbing or descending.

For physical interaction, a set of narrow diameter, tightly packed posts could be raised from the floor. Behind the person, these could form a chair to sit in while in front they could form a table or wall. Wearing sensory gloves could provide heat and cold to touch and perhaps some feeling of texture.

Audio would be easy to simulate.

Fans, heat lamps, and water misting systems could provide an environmental feel to the participant's face.

This could provide a fairly immersive virtual experience  for one. Multiple sessions could be linked to provide a group experience.


----------



## -K2- (Oct 9, 2020)

Actually, the whole visual part puts me off most. Physical objects can be explained away using the transporter/replicator excuse, though there have been times where they showed objects with depth which could be walked around, but no mass (this even goes for Tony Stark working 3d design without glasses). Light doesn't reflect off something that isn't there...and air alone won't do it. You can't fill a room with a gas because then you'd see a beam.

IOW, they need to commit to their most far-fetched explanation and stick to it, hehe.

K2


----------



## Dave Vicks (Oct 11, 2020)

Two videos to see ROLLING STONES 'SHES SO COLD' Promo. 
And REM's 'RADIO SONG 'video.


----------



## Dave Vicks (Oct 11, 2020)

WOT=Way off Topic.

Would somebody please film a Jack Vance story.


----------



## Dave Vicks (Oct 11, 2020)

Aboard a spaceship you need either Velcro, magnets, or Gravatons to avoid floating around.


----------



## farntfar (Oct 11, 2020)

It seems to me that it mostly all boils down to one problem to solve: The organised and controlled conversion of mass to energy and back again, along with one hell of a lot of computing and memory power. And, of course, the ability to do this at a distance. (the surface of the planet for instance.)
The original process, transporting, was explained that way pretty much right from the beginning, and the memory issues were dealt with in the throw away phrase "Pattern buffers".

Replication is just doing it on a smaller and more localised level and with stored patterns of steak and chips, romulan ale and earl grey tea.

And holodecks, the same thing. (I'm fairly sure someone explained to someone else, at same stage (*) that only the close up things were produced physically. More distant things were merely images, in order to save energy. (* How to be vague: 101)

So once the principle of very fine tuned matter/energy conversion is mastered (it shouldn't be difficult. Right? (sine qua non)), the rest is just playing about.

As for internal gravity, this is just a tractor beam spread thinly all over a ship. So again just a specialised projection of energy, at a distance.

The real question is why, with all this remote control of these vaste amounts of energy, anyone is bothering to use phasers or photon torpedoes any more.


----------



## Wayne Mack (Oct 11, 2020)

The one challenge beyond the decomposition, transmission, and recomposition of physical matter is translation of life force to information and back. The implications of creating or recreating a living organism from an information stream extend far beyond a transporter. Why not simply mass produce a clone army (think Power Rangers' putties)?


----------



## Vladd67 (Oct 11, 2020)

I seem to remember in Star Trek the animated series it was a common solution to run someone through a transporter to cure a disease as the transporter had healthy versions of the crew stored in it.


----------



## Cydramech (Oct 14, 2020)

I'm going to say, absolutely not. Why? Because damn it, that's the answer needed to make these things happen!


----------

