The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > TOS Origin of Trans-Warp Beaming?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 07-25-2011, 02:19 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

The fact that you can dismantle and reassemble somthing as complex as a human body exactly the way it was means you are capable acquiring positional isolation on the atomic level. The current technology is quite capable of tracking a human being from orbit in real time and guide missles to that target. In order for an object to lose a light speed lock you've got to move faster than light...so if you're capable of tracking ships at warp then or at extreme range in REAL time then tracking a human being falling should not be problem...not even gravitational flux is going to move you faster than those sensor can detect....

And again...we know Enterprise tracked Narada in real time. The discontinuity in the movie tech is clear and obvious. Of course they weren't think on this level but the problem or question is...were they even thinking at all? It doesn't sound like these sort of logistics were a conern for them they didn't run through technobble to explain it away they rather reduced there explanations to all to simplistic counters like "she fell" and similiar odd ball occurences. It's too bad they didn't take the time to do this because they know how stupid what they did was, it couldn't pass even the lightest scrutiny.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-25-2011, 11:11 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futureguy View Post
IDK.......Look at the (debated) visual level of technical advancement of the nu-E over TOS. Even the first TOS-ish pilot had a seemingly reliable transporter, though granted it was not script-tested to the degree the one in STXI was. It's basic functionality and capability continued on to TOS. Only mentioned problem was transporting through "shields" and outside "TIY" there was only the implied use of the system ship to planet or vise-versa or ship to ship in an undisclosed range. But in TIY the transporter was definitely working at a level far above what STXI's was and that was my original point. Transporting at extreme warp from the Enterprise, with the earth moving up and by just as quickly and they nailed the transport of Capt. Christopher not only back to earth, but right back into his plane. Pretty good job whether it was the automated controls or (Scotty?) making the calculations. Add to that the fact that time was also advancing exponentially and till then, time travel had not been a factor in beaming. They just did it without question.
Transporters have a litany of limitations and factors that can affect a successful transport - some of which have been 'in-universe' overcome in various episodes - and have done so over the years from TOS through to DS9 and back to ENT.

Many of which relate to maintaining the signal lock of the person and the several ways that locks can be lost by various means.

Returning to TOS, so the ship transported someone while in Warp in one episode of TOS.................this would then seem to make the TOS transporters of the Enterprise in the 2260s more technologically advanced and capable than even Transporter technology by the time of TNG in the 2360s and beyond, because later on in several episodes of TNG we are told that beaming while at Warp is inherently dangerous and must only be done in certain circumstances with a great deal of risk because of the spatial distortions that the engines would cause (presumably to the signal integrity and strength of the person in transport or some blah, blah like that) during the process.

Preferably it's not done period.

So they are more advanced than everything that came later if the ship does it with no sense of risk at all.

But all that really does is create another inconsistency between early TOS and the bulk of the rest of the depicted Universe (a little bit like how the 'stack of books with legs' Kirk had to have the importance of books drilled into him by Sam Cogley one time).

Even the circumstances which suppose that beaming at Warp can be done (again still with supposed risk) don't even retrospectively cover 'Tomorrow is Yesterday' anyway so, it's the decision to vote for a singular instance in season 1 of TOS, versus voting for the generally established rules of beaming at Warp established and generally kept throughout the whole of later Trek.

Until various other episodes started to try and workaround it..............usually for the requirements of an individual episode. But then we can argue that that's what Transwarp Beaming is in the film anyway.

Weighing those options up, I would be inclined to forget about 'TIY' and go with the bulk of the depicted operation of transporters.

Which ST09 still doesn't particularly heavily violate.

Quote:
Can't tell me that for all the visual advancement of the ship design and systems between TOS and STXI, the transporter was a big thing basically inferior to TOS?
I can't................without saying (as I did above) that every other transporter in the Prime Universe was also apparently inferior to TOS in the same regard.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-25-2011, 03:25 PM
Futureguy Futureguy is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,153
Default

[quote=kevin;316258]Transporters have a litany of limitations and factors that can affect a successful transport - some of which have been

But all that really does is create another inconsistency between early TOS and the bulk of the rest of the depicted Universe (a little bit like how the 'stack of books with legs' Kirk had to have the importance of books drilled into him by Sam Cogley one time).
I always took the visual to stack of books as a stack of "tapes" or recordings similar to what Gary Mitchell was using for a short time after he was affected by the barrier. The saying just carried over from another period of history, like many of us use sayings that do not apply the same now as they did originally. "His name is Mud" originally applied to the Dr. Mudd that treated JWB after he assassinated Lincoln. Most folks, as I did, grew up thinking "mud", meaning dirty of character or someone in trouble. Close, but not understood from the original intention.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-25-2011, 04:18 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,609
Default

[quote=Futureguy;316260]
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Transporters have a litany of limitations and factors that can affect a successful transport - some of which have been

But all that really does is create another inconsistency between early TOS and the bulk of the rest of the depicted Universe (a little bit like how the 'stack of books with legs' Kirk had to have the importance of books drilled into him by Sam Cogley one time).
I always took the visual to stack of books as a stack of "tapes" or recordings similar to what Gary Mitchell was using for a short time after he was affected by the barrier. The saying just carried over from another period of history, like many of us use sayings that do not apply the same now as they did originally. "His name is Mud" originally applied to the Dr. Mudd that treated JWB after he assassinated Lincoln. Most folks, as I did, grew up thinking "mud", meaning dirty of character or someone in trouble. Close, but not understood from the original intention.
I had the same interpretation of "mud" as well until I discovered its origins.

As a far as the whole trans-warp beaming debate. I think we can successfully blame the writers and producers, who never fully understood the whole Trek mechanics. Just like they did with Spock's mind-meld and the different ways it was applied and referred to in some of the early episodes.
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-25-2011, 08:28 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

I don't see a point in comparing the transporters from a rebooted form of Trek to the ones that came before it. It's a reboot, they aren't meant to be comparable. JJ wanted a movie that was kinetic, it showed in everything. Including the transporters. Is it such a bad thing?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-25-2011, 09:50 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin View Post
I don't see a point in comparing the transporters from a rebooted form of Trek to the ones that came before it. It's a reboot, they aren't meant to be comparable. JJ wanted a movie that was kinetic, it showed in everything. Including the transporters. Is it such a bad thing?
No… not at all…
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-25-2011, 10:06 PM
Futureguy Futureguy is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin View Post
I don't see a point in comparing the transporters from a rebooted form of Trek to the ones that came before it. It's a reboot, they aren't meant to be comparable. JJ wanted a movie that was kinetic, it showed in everything. Including the transporters. Is it such a bad thing?
Sure, but hasn't the discussion been refreshing? As I said earlier in another post. I just found lurking here the best I could do the last few months until I could think of something to bring up for a discussion. I think I succeeded in accomplishing that.

MAYBE.......On the Kelvin, just before they came across the Narada, a transporter "guru/scientist" had just discovered how to correct some inherent problems with the whole system. Possibly the same spin as Kirk would have been born on earth, in Iowa if not for... He entered his theories into the log computer, left to go talk it over with the chief engineer, the Narada shows up and "blewey" no guru left to fix the problems.......and no Kelvin remaining with his log entry. Transporter weaknesses persist until Spock spills Scotty his own beans about certain capabilities that he theorized in the prime universe.......and subsequently lost Admiral Archer's beagle demonstrating in the new. Old problems on their way to being rectified...lol

Never understood why the transporter was never used as a weapon. Closest thing was "Trouble With Tribbles" when Scotty beamed them all onto the Klingon vessel. Probably would have been "Bad Form" to have done so...
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-25-2011, 10:13 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin View Post
I don't see a point in comparing the transporters from a rebooted form of Trek to the ones that came before it. It's a reboot, they aren't meant to be comparable. JJ wanted a movie that was kinetic, it showed in everything. Including the transporters. Is it such a bad thing?
It's hardly a bad thing when they really essentially didn't work any differently to the Prime Universe anyway.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-26-2011, 01:56 AM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
The fact that you can dismantle and reassemble somthing as complex as a human body exactly the way it was means you are capable acquiring positional isolation on the atomic level.
More like down to the subatomic level, which is even more complex. Hence the Heisenberg compensaters. Fairly blatant but well executed example of techno hand waving.

The way I would have written both the mid air transport scene and perhaps Amanda's death would have a bit different, but would also require that the transporter system be fleshed out even more.

Now it could probably be argued that the capability to track the actual person and track the actual molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles of said person are completely separate capabilities and thus are actually separate sensors. Example, compound microscope vs electron microscope. Compound microscopes are great for general studies of small objects but for much smaller objects you need more specialized equipment hence the electron microscope. So it's not entirely far fetched to say that the sensors used to track the molecules, atoms, etc may actually be a separate dedicated unit designed exclusively for super high resolution detection and tracking down to the subatomic level. Problem is when you start to focus on smaller and smaller objects, often your field of vision becomes increasingly limited. Case and point, take an optical microscope. As you increase the power, the field of vision decreases. Furthermore if you want to adjust the field of vision by moving the slide, the higher the magnification, the more precise you have to be with moving the slide or you'll over correct and lose track of what you're looking at. This is why with compound scopes you decrease power then move the slide so you don't lose track of the object. (On a side note, the higher power lenses on a compound microscope are also much more nearsighted than the lower power lenses).

So you could probably try rewriting the scenes in such a way where the transporter actually uses several different types of sensors (at least two). For tracking the actual target to be transported the transported uses a fairly standard targeting sensor, akin to the kind you can use to target weapons (I'll just call it the targeting sensor). The information from this sensor is then fed to the computer to allow it to direct and focus the special dedicated high resolution sensor (I'll just call it the transporter sensor) on the target so that it can scan and track the molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles of said target.

So the way I would write the free fall scene is this. After the initial battle with the Narada, some if not all the targeting sensors were damaged, and out of alignment, whatever you can use you imagination. During Sulu and Kirk's free fall, they attempt to transport and at that point, the problem with the targeting sensors comes to light. Standard procedures to correct the issue aren't fast enough, and incomes boy genius who is able to quickly fix or improvise a solution. Targeting sensors are back up and running and are now able to provide good enough information for the computer to focus the transporter sensors on to Kirk and Sulu.

Now for the evacuation from Vulcan. Spock and company signal to be beamed up. They're all stationary. Targeting sensors direct the transporter sensors which then lock on and begin with beaming process. Now let's say the targeting sensors, which were barely functional as it was following the battle with the Narada finally crap out or are once again rendered unrealiable at that moment. Well Spock and company aren't really moving much if at all so the targeting information would still be good enough to keep the transporter sensors focused in on the targets. Then bang, the ledge falls from under Amanda. She begins to accelerate downward out of the narrow field of vision of the transporter sensors. Without the targeting sensors feeding reliable real time data the computer is unable to refocus the transporter sensors or the transporter beam onto her and thus they loser her.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard

Last edited by Akula2ssn : 07-26-2011 at 02:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-26-2011, 04:46 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akula2ssn View Post
More like down to the subatomic level, which is even more complex. Hence the Heisenberg compensaters. Fairly blatant but well executed example of techno hand waving.

The way I would have written both the mid air transport scene and perhaps Amanda's death would have a bit different, but would also require that the transporter system be fleshed out even more.
My solution would be not to use the transporter as a plot device.
If you needed simple then why not have a rock fall on her or fall into a crevice far before she's transported?

Quote:
Now it could probably be argued that the capability to track the actual person and track the actual molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles of said person are completely separate capabilities and thus are actually separate sensors. Example, compound microscope vs electron microscope. Compound microscopes are great for general studies of small objects but for much smaller objects you need more specialized equipment hence the electron microscope. So it's not entirely far fetched to say that the sensors used to track the molecules, atoms, etc may actually be a separate dedicated unit designed exclusively for super high resolution detection and tracking down to the subatomic level. Problem is when you start to focus on smaller and smaller objects, often your field of vision becomes increasingly limited. Case and point, take an optical microscope. As you increase the power, the field of vision decreases. Furthermore if you want to adjust the field of vision by moving the slide, the higher the magnification, the more precise you have to be with moving the slide or you'll over correct and lose track of what you're looking at. This is why with compound scopes you decrease power then move the slide so you don't lose track of the object. (On a side note, the higher power lenses on a compound microscope are also much more nearsighted than the lower power lenses).
Heres the thing.
Those are all human adjusted optical enhancers. We're talking computer control because tracking several trillion in cells is not something you would ask a human to do This is also why systems are interlinked for correspondence . Lets take the example of the Kelvin firing at the incoming missiles. These objects weren't much larger than a human being but we see that the ship can properly track where those missiles were, course and speed for intercept at split second timing to prevent the shuttles from being destroyed as they retreated.

The principle remains the same because those objects were surely moving faster than Amanda whose acceleration was even sufficient for terminal velocity. If you can't track amanda's sudden fall then you weren't LOCKED on the target...you were merely aiming at it. A True Lock means the target has been acquired by return signal and as long as the target is within the sensor's field of vision then nothing that target does will cause the lock to waver.

Quote:
So the way I would write the free fall scene is this. After the initial battle with the Narada, some if not all the targeting sensors were damaged, and out of alignment, whatever you can use you imagination. During Sulu and Kirk's free fall, they attempt to transport and at that point, the problem with the targeting sensors comes to light. Standard procedures to correct the issue aren't fast enough, and incomes boy genius who is able to quickly fix or improvise a solution. Targeting sensors are back up and running and are now able to provide good enough information for the computer to focus the transporter sensors on to Kirk and Sulu.

Now for the evacuation from Vulcan. Spock and company signal to be beamed up. They're all stationary. Targeting sensors direct the transporter sensors which then lock on and begin with beaming process. Now let's say the targeting sensors, which were barely functional as it was following the battle with the Narada finally crap out or are once again rendered unrealiable at that moment. Well Spock and company aren't really moving much if at all so the targeting information would still be good enough to keep the transporter sensors focused in on the targets. Then bang, the ledge falls from under Amanda. She begins to accelerate downward out of the narrow field of vision of the transporter sensors. Without the targeting sensors feeding reliable real time data the computer is unable to refocus the transporter sensors or the transporter beam onto her and thus they loser her.

Damaged sensors would be a much better explanation than what was given in the movie.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:39 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.