np NP: Monday, May 9, 2016

[hkmaly 490]

3 hours ago, InfiniteRemnant said:

maly, you can have your strings back when you clean your room, and no stuffing everything into a black hole under your bed this time!

Wait. I can imagine child playing with topological defects of space-time, but I can't imagine child which would be so bad at cleaning it would actually deliberately put toys somewhere where it's impossible to get them back from.

(Also, as a child, I had a bed with drawer. Storing stuff into it would likely be considered acceptable form of cleaning the room.)

[ProfessorTomoe 1,308]

5 hours ago, InfiniteRemnant said:

maly, you can have your strings back when you clean your room, and no stuffing everything into a black hole under your bed this time!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/black_hole.png

[Vorlonagent 442]

17 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Wait. I can imagine child playing with topological defects of space-time, but I can't imagine child which would be so bad at cleaning it would actually deliberately put toys somewhere where it's impossible to get them back from.

(Also, as a child, I had a bed with drawer. Storing stuff into it would likely be considered acceptable form of cleaning the room.)

What if the child *can* get them back?

[ijuin 572]

How about if the child is a young member of the Q Continuum? 

[hkmaly 490]

3 hours ago, ijuin said:

How about if the child is a young member of the Q Continuum? 

You are saying it as if members of the Q Continuum were showing any signs of maturing.

4 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

What if the child *can* get them back?

Then it's not black hole.

Jokes about Chuck Norris notwithstanding, there are things which are impossible by definition. No matter what you do and what kind of being you are, you can't do them without changing something which you wasn't supposed to change.

(Although ... if you want to count to infinity, you can. You just need to say the numbers faster and faster - you have only half as much time for saying "two" as you have for saying "one".)

On the other hand, stuffing toys into black hole and then recreating them from pure energy pumped from the black hole wouldn't be that hard, relatively speaking. It's just wouldn't really be the same toys.

19 hours ago, ProfessorTomoe said:

On 05/17/2016 at 0:17 AM, InfiniteRemnant said:

maly, you can have your strings back when you clean your room, and no stuffing everything into a black hole under your bed this time!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/black_hole.png

See also the explanation or this directly. To quote: "Short answer, you, and everyone around you, will die."

[Vorlonagent 442]

1 minute ago, hkmaly said:

You are saying it as if members of the Q Continuum were showing any signs of maturing.

There are male and female members of the Q Continuum (at least some Q *look* male or female to humans...)  If the human experience is at all transferable to the Q, you don't need that much maturity to breed.

And the Classic Trek episode "Squire of Gothos" did show us that some cosmic beings actually do breed...

 

2 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

On the other hand, stuffing toys into black hole and then recreating them from pure energy pumped from the black hole wouldn't be that hard, relatively speaking. It's just wouldn't really be the same toys.

It'd be no different than moving the toys around by transporter...

[hkmaly 490]

5 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

16 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

You are saying it as if members of the Q Continuum were showing any signs of maturing.

There are male and female members of the Q Continuum (at least some Q *look* male or female to humans...)  If the human experience is at all transferable to the Q, you don't need that much maturity to breed.

And the Classic Trek episode "Squire of Gothos" did show us that some cosmic beings actually do breed...

I was objecting to the "young" part. ANY member of Q continuum, starting with the most known Q, could be called child ... although likely not where he can hear it.

6 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

17 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

On the other hand, stuffing toys into black hole and then recreating them from pure energy pumped from the black hole wouldn't be that hard, relatively speaking. It's just wouldn't really be the same toys.

It'd be no different than moving the toys around by transporter...

That's true. It's also reason why I completely understand Barclay's fear of them. And few others. I remember some novel addressing that in non-startrek universe ...

[Vorlonagent 442]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

I was objecting to the "young" part. ANY member of Q continuum, starting with the most known Q, could be called child ... although likely not where he can hear it.

In Classic Trek's Squire of Gothos, Trelane, the child-cosmic-being, chased the Enterprise around with an earth-sized planet at one point.

Edit: I have to partly back off on the above. Trelane did have some technological help and some of his tricks may have actually been illusions. Trelane's parents appeared to be higher-order beings, however. Trelane's own human appearance was a part of the game he was playing with Our Heroes.

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

That's true. It's also reason why I completely understand Barclay's fear of them. And few others. I remember some novel addressing that in non-startrek universe ...

The very first Trek novel ever to exist, "Spock must Die!", has a modified transporter creating an evil clone of Spock who was a mirror image down to the handedness of his organic molecules.  In setting up the duplication, the book has Scotty and McCoy discuss whether putting someone through a transporter could be considered murder.  McCoy was the first transporterphobic in Trek.

[hkmaly 490]

18 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

That's true. It's also reason why I completely understand Barclay's fear of them. And few others. I remember some novel addressing that in non-startrek universe ...

The very first Trek novel ever to exist, "Spock must Die!", has a modified transporter creating an evil clone of Spock who was a mirror image down to the handedness of his organic molecules.  In setting up the duplication, the book has Scotty and McCoy discuss whether putting someone through a transporter could be considered murder.  McCoy was the first transporterphobic in Trek.

But that was MODIFIED transporter. That novel I speak about was about transporter which NORMALLY created copy and required the original to be killed - which was normally automated, but then confirmation about successful transfer arrived too late and non-automatic solution had to be done ...

I remember some article that Roddenberry himself, in reaction to some debates like this, commented that he should've based the transporter technology on something less problematic than breaking objects down into stream of subatomic particles.

[Scotty 1,061]

Yeah there was that episode where it shows Barclay going through the transport process and he's fully aware of the whole thing. Plus the fact that there were other entities inside the matter stream with him that he could physically interact with. Definitely makes the whole "copy/destroy" bit defunct.

[Vorlonagent 442]

12 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

But that was MODIFIED transporter. That novel I speak about was about transporter which NORMALLY created copy and required the original to be killed - which was normally automated, but then confirmation about successful transfer arrived too late and non-automatic solution had to be done ...

I remember some article that Roddenberry himself, in reaction to some debates like this, commented that he should've based the transporter technology on something less problematic than breaking objects down into stream of subatomic particles.

Roddenberry probably should have.

Standard-issue transporters have created clones as well.  James Kirk was once split into two bodies, each of which only had half of his personality.

And of course a similar transporter accident created Thomas Riker (who proved to me that Jonathan Frakes could in fact act competently.  I was forced to blame his subpar-appearing portrayal of William Riker on bad direction early on in TNG which got canonized as THE way to play Riker).

[Scotty 1,061]

Don't forget the transporter accident that caused Picard, Guinan, Keiko and Ro to become children.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

In Star Trek the Motion Picture, McCoy demands that other crewmembers beaming up to the Enterprise go first so that he can see how it scrambles their molecules.  Kirk, Rand, and the arriving crewmember delivering the message all laugh it off.

That same transporter caused the death of two other crewmembers just a few hours previously.  Is his concern really that unreasonable?

Edited May 19, 2016 by Pharaoh RutinTutin
spelling

[Vorlonagent 442]

"A cranky transporter is a mighty finicky piece of equipment to be betting your life on..."  --Scotty

"Crazy way to travel, spreading a man's molecules all over the universe then collecting them back up..." --McCoy

[Scotty 1,061]

1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

"A cranky transporter is a mighty finicky piece of equipment to be betting your life on..."  --Scotty

Says the guy that spent 80 years inside a pattern buffer.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

11 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Says the guy that spent 80 years inside a pattern buffer.

It worked, didn't it?  Heck of a lifeboat, and done on the fly, too.  If there's ever another series set later than TNG (as TNG was set later than TOS), I hope that is one of the standard just-in-case features of the transporters.

[Matoyak 51]

17 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

It worked, didn't it?  Heck of a lifeboat, and done on the fly, too.  If there's ever another series set later than TNG (as TNG was set later than TOS), I hope that is one of the standard just-in-case features of the transporters.

Weren't both DS9 and Voyager concurrent with, and then lasting past, the end of tNG? Or do you mean one set a far distance beyond tNG, like how tNG was a half century or so past tOS?

[InfiniteRemnant 141]

ds9 was set during the same time period as tng seasons 4-7, generations, & first contact, plus a bit after that.

voyager starts a few months before edington betrayed everyone, and ends a a few years after the dominion war does (several months before Nemesis).

[Scotty 1,061]

Supposedly the new series being worked on is set a number of years after the TNG/DS9/Voy era so who know.

 

Though was was just reminded of the transporter accident on DS9 that had Sisko and a bunch of others get put in the holosuite system to prevent pattern degradation.

[hkmaly 490]

2 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

Says the guy that spent 80 years inside a pattern buffer.

It worked, didn't it?  Heck of a lifeboat, and done on the fly, too.  If there's ever another series set later than TNG (as TNG was set later than TOS), I hope that is one of the standard just-in-case features of the transporters.

Well the other guy who tried it died. Also, it made him forget he saw how Kirk died.

 

[InfiniteRemnant 141]

it was 75 years not 80. 80 would have put scotty's crash 4 years before the launch of the enterprise B