or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Star Trek Technology
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Trek Technology - Page 2

post #16 of 95
How does 3D Printing resemble replicators? Taking nothing and creating an actual thing - real Earl Grey, real food, etc. - is quite a bit different from forming plastic.
post #17 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
How does 3D Printing resemble replicators? Taking nothing and creating an actual thing - real Earl Grey, real food, etc. - is quite a bit different from forming plastic.

Think 3D printing at the molecular level.
post #18 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post
Eff that noise, Kirk and Spock made off like bandits with that tech back in the OS. It was laziness and sloppy writing that made everybody forget they had it.

I remember that ep. The Romulan captain chick was so 1960s hot. It was awesome. And the cloaking device looked like a giant lightbulb.
post #19 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
Think 3D printing at the molecular level.

We're nowhere near there yet, though. Replicators on ST don't just form items from component molecules; they form the cimponent molecules themselves from some sort of element storage base.

Supposedly replicators (and maybe phasers) are the most theoretically plausible ST tech, though, so that's cool. Cloaking is probably also theoretically possible, though with current technology, it would be a very clunky solution driven by cameras and mirrors.
post #20 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by lou View Post
This is not an accurate statement.

http://fusionfilter.com/?p=1702

Transporter technology is far more difficult to realize than a holographic enviroment. Then there is the whole aspect of building an anti matter powered engine. Even with the engine, you need a way to create a warp bubble to so that you can exceed C.

The idea behind the warp bubble is that mass is taken out of the equation, allowing velocity beyond C.


I wonder if they programmed boobs.
post #21 of 95
Great thread. Hmmm, let's see. Considering the time Da Vinci "patented" a flight machine, based on a theory of giving humans wings centuries ago, and that a university student just actually made a "flight machine" based on that design which actually worked due to the materials etc. available today that weren't in Da Vinci's time invented/discovered/created yet (although the flight was short, then, also true of the Wright Bros. when they first launched and thus (properly) credited for same, as their machine actually worked), it really is only a matter of time: someone to dream it, and someone whether the initial dreamer or another inventor coming along to actually build it, assuming of course the theory is sound (if someone can dream it and it's worth doing, it may take centuries, but it can be done as flight itself proves, no?). As to the whole warp travel/time travel theory, Stephen Hawking speaks to that, theorizing the possibility of worm holes, and folding time through space. Very interesting stuff, though today it's akin to the flight machine theorized by Da Vinci in his time, such that we're no where near inter galactic travel at this time. That said, the concept of food replicators doesn't to me actually seem that far fetched. We are right now able to clone not just genes but whole animals, and also grow "meat" in petri dishes. Stated the following article: "Experiments for NASA space missions have shown that small amounts of edible meat can be created in a lab. But the technology that could grow chicken nuggets without the chicken, on a large scale, may not be just a science fiction fantasy." see, http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0709-rhett_butler.html Of course, transporter tech (idea of scrambling, transporting, and then reassembling one's genetic make up en masse) does seem a bit far fetched, then, if they ever create a test model, I think I'll pass and opt for the shuttle instead (wouldn't want to chance it and wind up being that "meat" in the dish
post #22 of 95
replicators are supposed to be based on transporter technology, though. pattern buffers and all that.
post #23 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
replicators are supposed to be based on transporter technology, though. pattern buffers and all that.

In a way, yes. Transporters disassemble your component molecules in one location at precisely the same time as they reassemble them in another location -- relying heavily on theories within quantum physics. Whether or not they're possible sort of depends on your personal view of the Schroedinger's Cat paradox, to put it very simply and a bit reductively.

Anyhow, replicators are basically "half" transporters. They don't disassemble existing structures, but rather, assemble new structures based on component atoms and molecules available through some sort of feeder substance (a primordial stew of a sort). There has to be that feeder base of molecules available, due to the laws of conservation of mass and energy. Replicators don't actually create a cup of coffee out of nothingness; they create the coffee and the cup out of other molecules. They are basically molecular assemblers, or, in a sense, molecular printers.

Of the two technologies, it's silly to say that replicators are "based" on transporters, inasmuch as transporters are a far more complicated technology that would almost certainly come second in any sort of development timeline. If the show says replicators are based on transporters, that's what the show says. But it would never be the case in real life. Replicators rely on the technology we don't have but which is theoretically plausible. Transporters rely on technology we don't have and don't even know is possible -- at least not on anything larger than the quantum level.

Interestingly, it's actually possible to "transport" quantum particles in today's world using today's technology. There's quite a massive leap from doing that to transporting a living creature, however, and assuming the creature will still be alive on the other end of the transportation.
post #24 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avocat View Post
That said, the concept of food replicators doesn't to me actually seem that far fetched. We are right now able to clone not just genes but whole animals, and also grow "meat" in petri dishes. Stated the following article:

There's a world of difference between cloning and culturing cells in a petri dish and replicator technology, though. They're apples and oranges.
post #25 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eason View Post
Damn, why doesn't the feds get that shit?

Been watching TNG online from season 1 for the last 2 months. Up to season 5, just saw that one with the alien prisoner spirits that take over Data and Troi and whoever, good episode. When I watched the show as a kid I never realized how shitty everybody but picard and riker are at acting. Especially geordi, damn sucka.

You think Frakes is a better actor than Burton?

I am on season 6 now.
post #26 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
You think Frakes is a better actor than Burton?

I am on season 6 now.

Yeah, Eason is on crack.

Levar is a great actor. It's just that his character is something of a pussy.

Frakes is one of the worst actors on the show. Of course, he looks like freaking De Niro when compared to Wil Wheaton, for instance.
post #27 of 95
I met LeVar Burton once as a child, while he was shooting an episode of Reading Rainbow next door to a family friend's house. He gave me a pre-autographed copy of a TNG fan novel with a religious drawing and the phrase "See the Light!" scrawled inside. It was really weird, and kind of ruined Star Trek for me. Frakes went to the same pharmacy we did, and was very pleasant with fans, which also kind of ruined it.
post #28 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by mharwitt View Post
I met LeVar Burton once as a child, while he was shooting an episode of Reading Rainbow next door to a family friend's house. He gave me a pre-autographed copy of a TNG fan novel with a religious drawing and the phrase "See the Light!" scrawled inside. It was really weird, and kind of ruined Star Trek for me. Frakes went to the same pharmacy we did, and was very pleasant with fans.

He gave you a gift and autographed it an you were offended by a totally ambiguous religious message?

People who don't like religion really don't like religion.
post #29 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by mharwitt View Post
I met LeVar Burton once as a child, while he was shooting an episode of Reading Rainbow next door to a family friend's house. He gave me a pre-autographed copy of a TNG fan novel with a religious drawing and the phrase "See the Light!" scrawled inside. It was really weird, and kind of ruined Star Trek for me. Frakes went to the same pharmacy we did, and was very pleasant with fans, which also kind of ruined it.

Dude, if I would have met and/or received an autographed book from LeVar Burton -- especially with some wacko religious message in it -- I would have jizzed myself on the spot. Also, pics or it didn't happen.
post #30 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
He gave you a gift and autographed it an you were offended by a totally ambiguous religious message? People who don't like religion really don't like religion.
you and your siege mentality at the time i was about 7, hadn't thought about things like the religions or personalities of the people on the show, and like a lot of kids liked to pretend that it was real. the meeting ruined my suspension of disbelief and when i watched it afterwards i just saw a bunch of actors. later on, it also struck me as weird that he carried around autographed fan fiction for such occasions. i didn't ask for it, he just wrote my name in it and handed it my mother.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Star Trek Technology