The Star Trek transporter is a device that is fundamentally unsound.

Transporter A scans the biological makeup of the person and sends it to Transporter B.

A deconstructs the person the same instant that B creates an exact copy of that person.

Everyone in Star Trek is a clone of a clone of a dead person.

File: image (64).jpg (9KB, 191x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 191x250px

>>7647420

This was actually brought up in an episode, the series of which escapes me at the moment.

I want to say it was Voyager and it was Torres saying something like "There was a lot of philosophical talk on whether someone at the destination was the same person as the one at the departure point."

But what I mean is actually transporting every single atom simultaneously from all of their points in space that make them capable of creating a person or being.

So then it would be like creating a warp bubble (using Star Trek vernac.) around the person and then using an ERB / black hole or other theoretical quantum method to achieve the receipt of that person on another end of space.

>>7647413
>it would kill the person or being
This is addressed in the series, and is why some people don't use transporters.

>>7647420
This. It is like a copy and paste, and then the original gets destroyed.

>>7647469

So then you agree that transportation of human beings actually kills said person for the sake of cloning them in another location?

Which would mean it should only be used to replicate food or needed materials.

>>7647457

IIRC, you're right it was on Voyager

Damn I need to rewatch Voyager and DS9

I'm sure there is an episode of TNG where they are in some sort of transporter dimension still fully concious while being transported and there was a giant maggot or something t︂bh

>>7647502
that episode was with Barclays fear of transporters

it was ridiculously absurd and anything in op was completely thrown out the window to say that the blueprints of people involved in a transporter malfunction were being shown as different things in the transporter download

Anyone remember the transporter accident in the first Star trek movie?

that shit was horrific.

>>7647420
I'm not familiar with star trek, but why would anyone voluntarily use this technology? When you walk in, you die. That's it, your experience of life ends.

The perfect copy of you would retain all your memories, including remembering walking into the transporter 10 seconds ago, so to him it would seem like a success, he might remember using transporters hundreds of times.

But still, that guy who walked in died?? Why is this a thing that people want to use?

>>7648025
>When you walk in, you die.
But you're also recreated over there.
From an evolutionary point of view, as long as it doesn't fuck with your genes it's a neutral selection event. People would use it.