View Single Post
  #43  
Old 04-15-2016, 02:00 PM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 24,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
From any technical standpoint, a matter transporter of the Star Trek variety is so much garbage. ... Trek is pure space opera, written by people who have only the faintest grasp of science, and at best a vehicle for interesting allegorical concepts.
...
There is a more extensive discussion of the various ways a matter transporter makes no sense in this 2007 thread: "Whgat would it be like to go through a Transporter? (Star Trek style)"?

Stranger
I see you've cut-and-pasted part of your reply from that earlier thread—either that, or your mind runs in some extremely well-worn grooves.

As I understand it, the transporter was included in Star Trek for reasons of technical and narrative convenience, and not because the creators didn't know or care that it wasn't scientifically feasible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
According to The Making of Star Trek, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's original plan did not include transporters, instead calling for characters to land the starship itself. However, this would have required unfeasible and unaffordable sets and model filming, as well as episode running time spent while landing, taking off, etc. The shuttlecraft was the next idea, but when filming began, the full-sized shooting model was not ready. Transporters were devised as a less expensive alternative, achieved by a simple fade-out/fade-in of the subject.