Also, the US Navy is currently trying to design a submarine that would go across the Atlantic super fast in a bubble to mitigate drag. This is how the Enterprise was supposed to work being in a sort of bubble so the crew and objects on the ship would not go flying all over the place going at such fast speeds. Google "The US Navy is working on a radical new submarine" to learn more.

@Benton12 said:

The transporter. But we feel almost nobody would to be put into it themselves for fear of not being reassembled right. It could be used easily for transporting inhuman objects.

"if you build it, they will come"

https://luxurylaunches.com/transport/02-07-2024-supersonic-underwater-submarine.php

I do not recall where I read about that transporter being ever possible in real life. It was about a month or two ago I looked it up. I do badly want that device to one day be a reality. If people are near death and the best doctors can do nothing for them storing them in a machine as molecules could be superior to cryogenics. By the scripting Bones needed this in FTWIHAIHTTS!

@bratface said:

https://luxurylaunches.com/transport/02-07-2024-supersonic-underwater-submarine.php

From the article: "Obviously, the biggest problem for vessels reaching high speeds both on the surface of water or below it is the huge amount of drag created while moving through it. But there’s a simple solution to overcome drag underwater – a bubble."

Is anyone else's leap straight to: "Titanic" submersible?

No thoughts of submersible. But the Lusitania did 90 percent bring the US into WW1. Some what more bigger than Titanic and radio.

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@Benton12 said:

The transporter. But we feel almost nobody would to be put into it themselves for fear of not being reassembled right. It could be used easily for transporting inhuman objects.

"if you build it, they will come"

Being reassembled properly - and not requiring a device at both ends - would not be the main problem. The main problem is that even if it works "right," the original you is destroyed and a duplicate takes your place.

Maybe nobody else would care, because the duplicate would have the same memories etc. But YOU would be gone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQZzSrAIp-E

@Knixon said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@Benton12 said:

The transporter. But we feel almost nobody would to be put into it themselves for fear of not being reassembled right. It could be used easily for transporting inhuman objects.

"if you build it, they will come"

Being reassembled properly - and not requiring a device at both ends - would not be the main problem. The main problem is that even if it works "right," the original you is destroyed and a duplicate takes your place.

Maybe nobody else would care, because the duplicate would have the same memories etc. But YOU would be gone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQZzSrAIp-E

Why is Sheldon using a knife on his sandwich?

Nope!!! To both last two posters. The problem is the potential for a transporter to screw up a person's DNA structure while reassembling resulting in death is immense.

A non-human object may get molecules a billionth messed up from a transporting act but that would probably be less severe. They should stick to non-electrical devices to transport.

What clone bit!?! It is your DNA sent far away and reassembled!

@Benton12 said:

What clone bit!?! It is your DNA sent far away and reassembled!

If it's not your matter, it's not you. It's just a copy of you.

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@Benton12 said:

The transporter. But we feel almost nobody would to be put into it themselves for fear of not being reassembled right. It could be used easily for transporting inhuman objects.

"if you build it, they will come"

On second thought, if they read this article...or one of the many articles like this one...they may NOT come!

"You Don't Want a 'Star Trek' Transporter Because Using It Would Kill You"

BY JOHN WENZ PUBLISHED: MAR 7, 2016

"There's a disturbing secret hiding in plain sight in Star Trek. Everyone you love in the show, everyone you've loved on the show, has died. They've died over and over. They've died twice or three times or even four times in a single episode. They're back the next week, only to die again. All those times Reginald Barclay hated the transporter? He was right. He went in. He died.

So wait, what? A great little video from CGP Grey explains teleportation works, at least in Star Trek terms. The transporter on the ship breaks down the atoms of each person and thing that steps in, reassembling them on the other side. But that original? That original dies.

It's sort of like the replicator. There's not a bag of Earl Grey, hot, sitting somewhere inside it. Instead the replicator has to have specific instructions on how to arrange whatever atoms are hanging around into the cup, the water, the Earl Grey tea itself, everything.

If the Star Trek transporter opened a wormhole each time, it would be a much simpler (though more energy intensive) proposition. You step in a portal and step out on the other side. Nightcrawler in X-Men is said to step in to his own dimension, probably because the alternative is dying and being reborn every panel.

And think of poor Thomas Riker in "Second Chances." Survives years on a planet only to be killed again in order to be "rescued." When Scotty was stuck in the transporter in "Relics," he was actually dead for decades on end. Those crewmen that died in the transporter in the first movie? Perhaps it was a mercy killing instead of dying over and over again.

I'll take the shuttle, thanks.

Source: CGP Grey"

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@Benton12 said:

The transporter. But we feel almost nobody would to be put into it themselves for fear of not being reassembled right. It could be used easily for transporting inhuman objects.

"if you build it, they will come"

On second thought, if they read this article...or one of the many articles like this one...they may NOT come!

"You Don't Want a 'Star Trek' Transporter Because Using It Would Kill You"

BY JOHN WENZ PUBLISHED: MAR 7, 2016

"There's a disturbing secret hiding in plain sight in Star Trek. Everyone you love in the show, everyone you've loved on the show, has died. They've died over and over. They've died twice or three times or even four times in a single episode. They're back the next week, only to die again. All those times Reginald Barclay hated the transporter? He was right. He went in. He died.

So wait, what? A great little video from CGP Grey explains teleportation works, at least in Star Trek terms. The transporter on the ship breaks down the atoms of each person and thing that steps in, reassembling them on the other side. But that original? That original dies.

It's sort of like the replicator. There's not a bag of Earl Grey, hot, sitting somewhere inside it. Instead the replicator has to have specific instructions on how to arrange whatever atoms are hanging around into the cup, the water, the Earl Grey tea itself, everything.

If the Star Trek transporter opened a wormhole each time, it would be a much simpler (though more energy intensive) proposition. You step in a portal and step out on the other side. Nightcrawler in X-Men is said to step in to his own dimension, probably because the alternative is dying and being reborn every panel.

And think of poor Thomas Riker in "Second Chances." Survives years on a planet only to be killed again in order to be "rescued." When Scotty was stuck in the transporter in "Relics," he was actually dead for decades on end. Those crewmen that died in the transporter in the first movie? Perhaps it was a mercy killing instead of dying over and over again.

I'll take the shuttle, thanks.

Source: CGP Grey"

Stuff like "Duplicate Riker" and "Duplicate Kirk" from TOS are proof positive that the transporter CANNOT POSSIBLY transport the actual person, intact, as they claim.

The thing is, though, if they convinced people that it was true, it's not like they would be able to tell. The duplicate has the same memories, etc. Including up to the moment of transport.

I've described it before as being perfectly utilitarian, which appeals to governments like China and Russia. Their own leaders would never use it, of course, but they don't mind if the regular people do because as long as the duplicate works as hard as the original and doesn't cause trouble, they don't care if they're being destroyed and duplicated.

There was an episode of "The Outer Limits" called "Think Like A Dinosaur" where it seems people were willing to use that technology even knowing what was actually happening. I don't understand how anyone could think that if a duplicate of themself goes to another planet and learns stuff, that's the same if THEY THEMSELF did it. And it's actually a double-step, because the first original is destroyed when they are sent to the other planet, and THAT duplicate is destroyed when a SECOND duplicate "returns" to Earth!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI

Knixon, your blab of a reply makes positively no sense whatsoever. It is not clone but the actual object back intact again . Pure and simple. But the possibility of slight but fatal failure is tremendous.