There was a 7th season episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that featured a similar plot line. I can't remember the name of the episode but the late Paul Sorvino guested stared as Worf's adopted brother Nicholai Roschenko.

@PikeAdmirer said:

There was a 7th season episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that featured a similar plot line. I can't remember the name of the episode but the late Paul Sorvino guested stared as Worf's adopted brother Nicholai Roschenko.

Not the same at all, really. They wound up saving the last survivors of a planet that basically destroyed itself, and took them to another planet - although Picard wasn't happy about it - but those survivors didn't bring anything to the Federation in terms of medical cures or anything.

@PikeAdmirer said:

There was a 7th season episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that featured a similar plot line. I can't remember the name of the episode but the late Paul Sorvino guested stared as Worf's adopted brother Nicholai Roschenko.

That was the episode "(S)TNG: Homeward (S7E13, 1994)".

@wonder2wonder said:

@PikeAdmirer said:

There was a 7th season episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that featured a similar plot line. I can't remember the name of the episode but the late Paul Sorvino guested stared as Worf's adopted brother Nicholai Roschenko.

That was the episode "(S)TNG: Homeward (S7E13, 1994)".

Yes, I remembered that.

AI claims transporter machines Star Trek style real life is more feasible than time travel to the past.

@Benton12 said:

AI claims transporter machines Star Trek style real life is more feasible than time travel to the past.

Maybe, if AI doesn't care about actually transporting the individual/consciousness, but only about the body.

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

Or maybe the claim is only that "transporter" is just slightly less impossible.

Knixon, you really thought wrong. Honestly, believing the ship's engines capable of backward time travel a more believable element than the transporter!!

No, it's not really about the engines causing time travel. If that were the case, they could just "go warp factor Time-Travel" and do it. They wouldn't need to USE the engines to FLY AROUND THE SUN.

People also get it wrong in the first original (Christopher Reeve) Superman movie. Superman flying around the Earth didn't cause time to go backwards, or Earth to go backwards/back in time. It meant SUPERMAN was going back in time, and from HIS PERSPECTIVE that means Earth would APPEAR to go backwards. But only Superman was going backward in time.

The main point, though, is that even if a "transporter" is developed, and works as in the show, it won't actually "transport" THAT PERSON. With THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS, etc.

Knixon you are weak, totally defeated and a liar. AI shows your view is impossible and the transporter possible. And yes the ship's engines are indeed what get her then back in time.

@Benton12 said:

Knixon you are weak, totally defeated and a liar. AI shows your view is impossible and the transporter possible. And yes the ship's engines are indeed what get her then back in time.

You are now the deserved ridiculed butt of jokes of people for claiming time travel more possible than a transporter.

To everyone else ( not whipped, ridiculed liar Knixon) a spaceship in the future would probably be running as transporter-made like molecules that would be reasonable to go ultra-far distances. Then the ship would reassemble to regular material structure while now far away. Easier than the ship going at many times the speed of light and staying intact. But even most of the last sentence is more possible an infinite number of times over than going back in time.

@Benton12 said:

Knixon you are weak, totally defeated and a liar. AI shows your view is impossible and the transporter possible. And yes the ship's engines are indeed what get her then back in time.

You're funny.

@Benton12 said:

To everyone else ( not whipped, ridiculed liar Knixon) a spaceship in the future would probably be running as transporter-made like molecules that would be reasonable to go ultra-far distances. Then the ship would reassemble to regular material structure while now far away. Easier than the ship going at many times the speed of light and staying intact. Bur even the last sentence is more possible an infinite number of times over than going back in time.

Or maybe drunk, or high.

I really have entertained many people in my everyday life by telling of a fool who thought time travel back in time more attainable than a transporter like that on the fictional Enterprise.

They just aren't thinking clearly.

Although I have said that a transporter AS DEPICTED ON THE SHOW - with all of its problems/implications - might be possible, but nobody with any sense would use it. The biggest limitation there is the likelihood that equipment would be required at both ends.

But such a transporter that ACTUALLY TRANSPORTS THE PERSON(ALITY) INTACT, is a different issue.