This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DunningKruger · 61-69, M
TheThinker · 56-60, M
@DunningKruger In practice I agree with you, but I'm going with it for the sake of the question. :)
If it were some kind of wormhole type thing then I might be tempted, but a Star Trek style "kill you in one place then put you back together in another"? No way, I'm with Dr. McCoy on that one.
Luckily it's been shown that the data rate for the latter would be literally impossible to ever achieve in our universe.
If it were some kind of wormhole type thing then I might be tempted, but a Star Trek style "kill you in one place then put you back together in another"? No way, I'm with Dr. McCoy on that one.
Luckily it's been shown that the data rate for the latter would be literally impossible to ever achieve in our universe.
DunningKruger · 61-69, M
@TheThinker Yes, because clearly what's happening with the transporter is that the you who steps into the transporter is being killed and an exact copy of you is being created at the end location. All the handwavium they've tried to use in Star Trek to explain that away (*cough* teleporter worms *cough*) have never been convincing.
The same thing would be true for the stargate, as it does essentially the same thing as the teleporter.
So, yes, a wormhole device that opens up a doorway between two points at different locations in the universe would be OK, but not the breaking you down to your component parts and then creating a copy of you elsewhere.
The same thing would be true for the stargate, as it does essentially the same thing as the teleporter.
So, yes, a wormhole device that opens up a doorway between two points at different locations in the universe would be OK, but not the breaking you down to your component parts and then creating a copy of you elsewhere.
TheThinker · 56-60, M
@DunningKruger Oh? I only watched the movie (which I loved) and one-and-a-bit seasons of the TV series (which I didn't) of Stargate but I always assumed that was a wormhole job.
Was it explicitly stated otherwise at some point?
Was it explicitly stated otherwise at some point?
DunningKruger · 61-69, M
@TheThinker Yes. Even in the original movie, they make clear that the stargate reduces you to your component parts and zips them over to the target stargate.
TheThinker · 56-60, M
@DunningKruger Hah, ok, I guess I wasn't paying attention then.
That's just stupid though, especially given it's a circular portal and the space-warping implied by the watery-ripple effect.
Having said that, I suppose there is that "breaking up into streaky dots" effect as they poked their faces through, but I thought that was just some kind of artistic licence "speed lines" type thing, and after all, the "zipping past stars and galaxies along a tube" effect implies both staying conscious throughout the transition and that it's travel along a wormhole.
Also, that begs the question, if it isn't using a wormhole to transmit the data, what faster-than-light method IS it using?
It's almost as if those doing the SFX thought it WAS a wormhole!
Silly scriptwriter...
That's just stupid though, especially given it's a circular portal and the space-warping implied by the watery-ripple effect.
Having said that, I suppose there is that "breaking up into streaky dots" effect as they poked their faces through, but I thought that was just some kind of artistic licence "speed lines" type thing, and after all, the "zipping past stars and galaxies along a tube" effect implies both staying conscious throughout the transition and that it's travel along a wormhole.
Also, that begs the question, if it isn't using a wormhole to transmit the data, what faster-than-light method IS it using?
It's almost as if those doing the SFX thought it WAS a wormhole!
Silly scriptwriter...