Lt. Commander
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 208
# 51
03-02-2013, 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkkindness2 View Post
Paradox averted, timeline changed from time traveler's perspective, alternate timeline created.
However, Star Trek hasn't avoided time travel paradoxes. One of the more blatant ones is the causality loop from Time's Arrow, where the discovery of Data's severed head in an abandoned mine sets the events in motion that causes his head end up in that very place.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,221
# 52
03-02-2013, 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by merryprankster2 View Post
But what about himself, that was already existing, in the alternate timeline? And all the people that populated, this, alternate timeline? Did they travel there from alternate dimensions, too? Or is it more a case of this whole, other, dimension springing into existence, from his action alone? A case of him creating the space/time continuum for that dimension, at that exact moment in time? There would be no original wrong to travel back in time to right. Not to mention, from his perspective, unless he ran into himself, he would think this was the future, as he would think his actions negated the original timeline from taking place, and would have no idea, that it simply continued without him in it. And what about all the momentous events, and roles that he was now absent from in this, original timeline? The questions are endless... that's the beauty of Sci-Fi, you can make up anything.
Unless Spock knew of advanced temporal mechanics that would result in different methods of time travel having different effects. Spock Prime was from 2387, at which point he could have had knowledge of time travel causing different effects, more sophisticated than what people knew about in the 2370 era of Nemesis. I'd imagine Voyager's logs alone would revolutionize the science of temporal mechanics in the Federation and assuming the typical ship encountered as many time anomalies as Voyager did, changes in the understanding of time travel seem possible.

The Borg INTENDED to alter a single timeline and not create a new one. And without knowing which conditions allow for the creation of a new timeline and which conditions don't, it's hard to say.

But my personal take is that if you want to alter your own past, you swim upstream through time like a salmon. And that the slingshot effect and Borg methods do this.

Whereas the red matter singularity DOESN'T propel you upstream. It causes you to exit your timeline and then re-impact with it, with sufficient probabilistic force to splinter it into two timelines upon re-entry.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 258
# 53
03-02-2013, 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by evendzhar View Post
However, Star Trek hasn't avoided time travel paradoxes. One of the more blatant ones is the causality loop from Time's Arrow, where the discovery of Data's severed head in an abandoned mine sets the events in motion that causes his head end up in that very place.
Good point. I'm willing to concede that time travel in Star Trek is generally a tangled mess of the currently available theories on how time travel and paradoxes would work if you are.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 62
# 54
03-02-2013, 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoleviathan99 View Post
Unless Spock knew of advanced temporal mechanics that would result in different methods of time travel having different effects. Spock Prime was from 2387, at which point he could have had knowledge of time travel causing different effects, more sophisticated than what people knew about in the 2370 era of Nemesis. I'd imagine Voyager's logs alone would revolutionize the science of temporal mechanics in the Federation and assuming the typical ship encountered as many time anomalies as Voyager did, changes in the understanding of time travel seem possible.

The Borg INTENDED to alter a single timeline and not create a new one. And without knowing which conditions allow for the creation of a new timeline and which conditions don't, it's hard to say.

But my personal take is that if you want to alter your own past, you swim upstream through time like a salmon. And that the slingshot effect and Borg methods do this.

Whereas the red matter singularity DOESN'T propel you upstream. It causes you to exit your timeline and then re-impact with it, with sufficient probabilistic force to splinter it into two timelines upon re-entry.
There you go. You're better than anyone writing at Cryptic. Just remember... space itself, is also moving.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 62
# 55
03-02-2013, 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thlaylierah View Post
From a reality point of view:

JJ Trek is the only currently supported Star Trek out there.

You will never see another Next Gen movie.

JJ Trek is now THE timeline unless someone decides to do something else with Trek.
I heard the third J.J. Trek actually deals with Kirk and Han Solo being redirected to their respective timeline/dimensions, during a freak transporter/hyperspace miscalculation. It aint like dustin' crops kid...
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,866
# 56
03-02-2013, 12:05 PM
Using the competing IP as a response is a common indicator of a lack of discrediting arguments.

I can see continuing movies dealing with TOS.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 62
# 57
03-02-2013, 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thlaylierah View Post
Using the competing IP as a response is a common indicator of a lack of discrediting arguments.

I can see continuing movies dealing with TOS.
Oh... O.K. How's this sound then:

You're wrong. STO is Star Trek, and yes, it's currently supported. And it has nothing to do with Paramount, or J.J. Abrams.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise there was an argument.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,221
# 58
03-02-2013, 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by merryprankster2 View Post
There you go. You're better than anyone writing at Cryptic. Just remember... space itself, is also moving.
There has been some recent theoretical work done which suggests that while space may be moving, it may NOT be accelerating as previously thought. The theory goes, as I recall, that time is actually much more relative than was previously thought. So at the rim of the universe, the rate of time may be different which only makes movement APPEAR to accelerate.

Point being, applying present understanding to 25th century characters is tricky. They need to know more than we know, which calls for certain "made up" rules for things like time travel.

The most dated science in Trek generally results from cases where the writers had Trek characters' understanding of science match real world science, which was subsequently ditched.

In general, I think you need lots of analogies (time being like a river) and fantasy rules to govern Trek. And they need to sound like things that match the basic workings or outer rim of science as we know it. But you run the risk of being dated whenever you say that there is one way that things "always" or "never" work or rely too heavily on real science without having made-up science tacked on top of it. That said, as a semi-regular enthusiast of Scientific American and scholarly theoretical physics, I do like references to real science. I just think Trek should try to stay fairly neutral on whether contemporary theories are adequate or complete or true in all situations.

I'd probably be so non-committal that I'd have characters say things like:

"Hydrogen GENERALLY has one proton and no neutrons."
"Generally?"
"Well, we made a discovery in 2377 that revolutionized particle physics in very rare cases and..."
"So most of the time Hygrogen has one proton?"
"Yes. It would be unusual if it didn't."

Basically, treat no rules as universal, including ones we take for granted.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,005
# 59
03-02-2013, 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoleviathan99 View Post
I'd probably be so non-committal that I'd have characters say things like:

"Hydrogen GENERALLY has one proton and no neutrons."
"Generally?"
"Well, we made a discovery in 2377 that revolutionized particle physics in very rare cases and..."
"So most of the time Hygrogen has one proton?"
"Yes. It would be unusual if it didn't."

Basically, treat no rules as universal, including ones we take for granted.
If we found an atom that differed from Hydrogen, wouldn't we call it something else instead of "also Hydrogen"?
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,221
# 60
03-02-2013, 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
If we found an atom that differed from Hydrogen, wouldn't we call it something else instead of "also Hydrogen"?
You'd think so. But there may be reasons why we wouldn't.

Which is why I'd allude to these things and cut off attempts at explaining them.

I'd think people in Trek wouldn't JUST be very good at modern day science but would have contradictory science that never gets fully explained onscreen. Because anything they could explain, we'd have access to. But they're in the future so they need to be presented as having access to information we don't.

Maybe atoms, for example, have building blocks we don't know about or some have massless protons attached, causing them to behave and look chemically like Hydrogen but get treated like Hydrogen isotopes for certain purposes.

When it doubt, I say:

- The universe is more complex than we think it is.

AND

- Trek characters know something about everything that we don't know.

AND

- Trek characters know things that we can't allow them to say onscreen because this establishes that they're more advanced than we are. If they said these things (and they were right) then they'd no longer be more advanced than we are.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:28 AM.