Star Trek technology is achievable

Con insisted:“It must be the same person on the other end, and not a replica since nobody on Star Trek expected to cease to exist while another took their place.” Rebuttal: Again, my opponent assumes that personhood is lost in transport. Since the observable science dictates that personhood is governed by genetics and brain chemistry,we must conclude that the person is maintained. The only way a person would cease to exist, is if the transporterannihilated a portion of the human personhood that’s immaterial.My opponent has provided no evidence of immaterial personhood, suchas a soul. --------- Con stated: If we cannot achieve a technology that is able to perform the above functions and applications, then Star Trek transporters are unachievable. Rebuttal: Straw Man argument. The round one premise dictates the burden, not my opponent’s objections. Again, I cite the burden of round one. --------- Con argued that the Higgs field is impossible, because “to be theoretically possible is not to be achievable, and Krauss says why this method is prohibitive.” Rebuttal: Actually, Krauss said that it is achievable, if we can overcome certain problems in the process. Consider the actual quote: "If I could manipulate a Higgs field, that would be a first step in making a transporter, but the only way I know of to manipulate the Higgs field is to heat the whole thing up...” [1] Krauss concedes that the method has not been developed, but that does not prohibit the mechanism from functioning. If we resolved to consider a mechanism impossible because it hasn’t been invented, then we must cease all funding to AIDS research. --------- Con stated: Naturally, Science does not work in this fashion. A theory is pursued until it becomes provenimpossible. Rebuttal: Yet the research is expanding. Consider the University of Wien in Germany, which has become the leading research entity in Quantum entanglement. Their research hasbreached domains such as: Quantum Entanglement for Space Entangled photons over 144 km Free-space quantum channel 4-photon de Broglie wave Long-Distance Free Space Freely propagating teleported qubits Entanglement of Orbital Angular Momentum States Entanglement purification Experimental realization of a GHZ state Long distance Bell experiment First quantum teleportation Clearly, teleportation has not been proved impossible. In fact, I would counter state that it has been proved possible and we have yet to research it’s limitations. [2] --------- Con objected to Star Trek transporters navigating down hallways. He claims that “ it doesn't seempossible.” Rebuttal: Radio theory dictates that waveform behavior changes with frequency. UHF and VHFfrequencies travel in a line-of-sight, which limits the communication distance of the radio by the horizon. Consider, 1 Watt of transmit power allows RF wave propagation for approximately 1 mile. Technically, a 4 kilowatt amplifier should propagate an RF wave for 4000 miles. Yet, it doesn’t. The reason for this is the curvature of the earth. RF waves travel in astraight line. Eventually the curvature of the earth will angle too far downward for the wave to continue. My opponent assumes that a transporter beam would be limited in the fashion. However, the HF (High Frequency) range (which starts at about 4 MHz), is not a ground wave. This RF wave “bounces”, in a zig-zag pattern between the earth and the atmosphere. It’s called a “sky-wave”. The sky wave will continue bouncing until the wavehas lost propagation. The higher the amplifier wattage, the further it will bounce. HF radios are used by ships andaircraft to communicate with stations on the other side of the planet. So how could we transport through cracks? The same way that you receive a cell-phone signal if you stand by the ground-level window in the basement. We simply adjust the frequency of thetransporter to change the way the Quantum particles travel.--------- Con established:” Pro rightly pointed out that molecules can pass through barriers depending on the molecule and the barrier type, but that is irrelevant since we are talking about "barriers like we see on Star Trek," including the walls and enclosures of the space ships.” Rebuttal: Irrelevant to the burden. We are speaking about real-world applications, not fictional Space-ship mechanics. Now my opponent objected to quantum tunneling by stating: that the article “discusses electrons escaping from atoms without having the necessary energy to do so. So this article does not support Pro's contention.” The article explains that the rules for quantum particles are unique, which is why we observe electron shifts, even though the energy for it was absent. As the joke goes: “Knock knock. -Who's there? Quantum tunneling. -Quantumtunneling wh --- Nevermind, I'm already inside.” We know quantum tunneling works. We see it. We have duplicated it. It’s observed fact. My opponent has stuck his head in the sand, pretending it never happened. So to solidify my premise, please view the 4 minute video on Quantum tunneling. http://www.youtube.com... --------- Con objected: Pro ignored my argument about the energy that would be released if all the matter in a human body was convereted to energy. Rebuttal: This premise seeks to increase the burden. By stating that the Human body must beconverted to energy before transport, you’ve excluded the possibility that solidmatter teleportation is possible. Not to mention, the only reason you’ve insisted on this method is to negate the premise oftransport through solid objects. It’s a myopic reduction of the argument. I have provided quantum tunneling as a mechanism for how a solid particle can (and observably) move through barriers.You’ve chosen to ignore that evidence. The matter does not need to be converted to energy because a solid particle can shift through solids without breaking the integrity of the wall. --------- Con objected to the recording problem. Rebuttal: My opponent needs to familiarize himself with how a computer stores information. I can convert complex information into a 5 kb text file without any hassle.Consider these 811 amino acids in this TEXT to DNA converter from Colorado State University. [3] Try it yourself: http://www.vivo.colostate.edu... Click – “Get Demo DNA”Click – “Translate DNA”Click – “Graphic output or Text Output” to view the data. I copied the information into a text file. It was 5.4 kilobytes in size. My 1991 Packard Bell 386SX has enough storage space to store over 10,800 copies of this file. My current hard drive couldstore over 200 million. The recording problem is a ridiculous objection. Arguments extended. --------- Con stated: I haven't brought the soul or religion into this discussion. I am assuming materialism just as he is.... But that is not sufficient to preserve personal identity. Rebuttal: My opponent indeed assumes a soul by presuming that personhood is based on anything more than materialism. As I’ve stated before, he is arguing from a perspective of religion and metaphysics. The truth is, my opponent has no real objection to my definition of personhood. His appeal to emotion was an attempt to morally “block” teleportation. It has nothing to do with technicalapplication or ability. He is asking a question similar to: ”What is the meaning of life?”, “If a tree falls in the woods….” [4] Yet the laws of thermodynamics would dictate that the person is fundamentally equal in mass, design and composition.---------Sources: http://www.msnbc.msn.com...[1]http://www.quantum.at...[2] http://www.vivo.colostate.edu...[3] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...[4]