Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

10
  • Ooh. Obligatory Doctor Who reference to Heaven Sent.
    – Rand al'Thor
    Commented Jun 13, 2016 at 23:54
  • 1
    In Enterprise (i.e. before TOS) they were hesitant to use transporters not because of this philosophical issue but because they weren't confident they'd arrive on the other side in one piece, so there's one interesting datum. I also checked the ST:TNG "Bible" and while it does have a transporter section, the changes it mentions do not include anything that would affect this question.
    – Ixrec
    Commented Jun 13, 2016 at 23:59
  • 1
    Because it's awesome: CGP Grey talks Transporters
    – Catija
    Commented Jun 14, 2016 at 0:07
  • 2
    "I'm sure that I have heard" seems to be the basis for your entire question. You're operating under an assumption and asking us to explain something about your assumption, without providing any grounds for that assumption.
    – Paul L
    Commented Jun 14, 2016 at 20:32
  • 2
    @PaulL: It is my reason for asking. And given that I was nearly certain I had heard this from an actual official source, I had expected the best answers would actually be able to cite where I had heard this from. If my motivations bother you that much, pretend I asked something like whether the details of the transporter had been decided in ToS and/or about the in-universe history of the transporter. Or I can edit the question if people really think that would improve it.
    – user12616
    Commented Jun 14, 2016 at 23:12