edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Feb 1, 2010 9:55:35 GMT -6
Again, it's the divergent timeline. The original exists intact while the new timeline goes on after the change by Nero. Let me give you another example: Remember the episode "Parallels," where Worf, returning to the Enterprise after the Bat'leth tournament in which he won, inadvertently flies through a rift in the space-time continuum into another universe/dimension/whatever you want to call it? Worf finds himself in one universe where we never won the tournament. Eventually they meet thousands of other Enterprises from alternate realities, even one in which the Enterprise never recovered Locutus and changed him back from Picard, and sending them back to their own timeline, which would basically be sending them back to their deaths. These are all realities within the Star Trek universe, but they were all slightly (or in some cases, more largely) different from how we saw things happen. It goes back to the "multiple timeline" theory, where if you make a change in the timeline you have created a new timeline, but the other one goes one intact. Part of that theory is that there are an infinite number of possibilities, and in each instant those infinite number of possibilities happen. In our Star Trek timeline, we saw the Enterprise recover Locutus and defeat the Borg. That didn't happen in the timeline the battered Enterprise was from. In our timeline we know that Worf won the bat'leth tournament. That didn't happen in one of the realities Worf visited. All these things happened within the same Star Trek universe, but their timelines all unfolded in different ways (again, an infinite number of possibilites).
|
|
Dax123
Commander
[ss:NX-01]
Posts: 1,207
|
Post by Dax123 on Feb 1, 2010 14:24:36 GMT -6
Ahhhhh.....I get it know! Thank you edify! So is there an actual thory in our world about multiple timeline?
|
|
PIKE
Cadet
One beep for YES[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 35
|
Post by PIKE on Feb 1, 2010 14:45:44 GMT -6
Dax123 , I get the timeline idea, but it's still confussing. I just don't like the idea that if we continue with these new Star Trek movies that the charaters and the (reality) that I know and love doesn't exist. They are in someway re-writting the stories that we already accept as our Star Trek reality. If they had added stories to the accepted mainstream Star Trek original I would have been less upset. Just my opinion.
|
|
kynan101
Ensign
[ss:Federation]
Posts: 83
|
Post by kynan101 on Feb 1, 2010 14:46:53 GMT -6
THEY DESTROYED VULCAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! tuvok would say "that was very illogical"
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Feb 3, 2010 17:06:12 GMT -6
Ahhhhh.....I get it know! Thank you edify! So is there an actual thory in our world about multiple timeline? Yes, Dax. There are different theories about time travel. I can't give you any names, unfortunately, but I have become familiar with time travel theory through immersing mysef in science fiction stories. When I was a kid, a lot of time travel stories operated by the theory that there is only one universe, and if you travel to the past anything you do there in the past will affect everything that happens in the future (the time travel stories of The Original Series operated by this principle -- see "The City on the Edge of Forever" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" for examples of that). I believe the movie The Butterfly Effect also operated by this principle, and there was an episode of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horrors that spoofed time travel shows and movies using this principle. However, this theory lends itself to what is known as the "grandfather paradox." If you go back in time and kill your grandfather, your father would not have been born and thus, you would not have been born and therefore you would not have been able to come back and kill your grandfather. Theories have been put forth that either you would cease to exist, or something would happen to prevent you killing your grandfather. The film version of The Time Machine explored this. *SPOILER WARNING* Alexander's fiancee was killed by a criminal, leading him to design a time machine so he could go back in time and save his fiancee. He tries and fails; she still dies. He saves her from the criminal, but she is struck by a car. Near the end of the movie he discovers he could never save his fiancee, because her death led him to create the time machine in the first place. Then there's the "multiple universe" theory. We know that Star Trek embraces multiple universes, as we saw the mirror universe in The Original Series, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise. Plus, in The Next Generation, in the episode "Parallels," we saw many Enterprise-D's from many alternate universes. But as time travel theory has evolved, so have the time travel stories of Star Trek. Time travel can be applied to the multiple universe theory, as well. This theory goes as follows (loosely paraphrased): there are an infinite number of possibilities in the universe. There are so many universes that everything that can possibly happen does happen, each thing occuring in a different alternate "timeline," if you will. Now, let's take the grandfather paradox again. By this theory, you can go back and kill your grandfather. The timeline in which your grandfather survives goes on, but you have just created an alternate timeline, one in which you have gone back into the past to kill your grandfather. This is the stance the new Star Trek film takes. Nothing has been "changed" about the past of the prime timeline, but the events of the new film have created a "divergent" timeline, separate from (but still in the same universe as) the prime Star Trek timeline. The Time Ships written by Stephen Baxter (which is the official sequel to H.G. Wells' The Time Machine), operates by this principle. The Time Traveller even has the chance to cross the gap between universes to return to his own original timeline. Back to the Future II also operated by this premise, where once Marty McFly and Doc Brown return to their own time to find the timeline tampered with, Doc Brown informed Marty that they could not return to the future to prevent Biff from traveling to the past and changing it. The reason for this is because they were now a part of the new timeline, and could only travel to that timeline's future. In order to restore the timeline back to how they knew it, they were going to have to travel into the past to stop Biff in the past from becoming a millionaire. I hope that makes things a little more clear. I actually really love time travel stories, especially ones that are unqiue.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 4, 2010 8:18:37 GMT -6
Again, it's the divergent timeline. The original exists intact while the new timeline goes on after the change by Nero... (sigh!) Right back where we started from! I can see where the confusion comes from now. To CHANGE something is "to cause to pass from one state to another, to alter or make different in style or essence, to substitute one thing for another." If you CHANGE something, the original no longer exists (except in your memory). If Nero had CHANGED the original timeline, then all Star Trek history after that point would have been erased. Now, what happened to Worf is different. Those were separate but PARALLEL universes. He didn't create them by changing anything in the past. The events in those universes diverged from similar events, but the universes themselves existed independently of one another. The Quantum Fissure only allow them to connect when ordinarily they would not have been connected at all. So... since the orginal timeline that we know still exists, if Nero CHANGED his timeline, then the entire movie must be set in a PARALLEL universe, totally separate from this one. That's what I've been saying all along!
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 4, 2010 8:21:18 GMT -6
So is there an actual thory in our world about multiple timeline? There is a multiple worlds theory, or M space theory. A lot of the people I talk to think it's hogwash.
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Feb 4, 2010 15:30:36 GMT -6
Again, it's the divergent timeline. The original exists intact while the new timeline goes on after the change by Nero... (sigh!) Right back where we started from! I can see where the confusion comes from now. To CHANGE something is "to cause to pass from one state to another, to alter or make different in style or essence, to substitute one thing for another." If you CHANGE something, the original no longer exists (except in your memory). If Nero had CHANGED the original timeline, then all Star Trek history after that point would have been erased. Now, what happened to Worf is different. Those were separate but PARALLEL universes. He didn't create them by changing anything in the past. The events in those universes diverged from similar events, but the universes themselves existed independently of one another. The Quantum Fissure only allow them to connect when ordinarily they would not have been connected at all. So... since the orginal timeline that we know still exists, if Nero CHANGED his timeline, then the entire movie must be set in a PARALLEL universe, totally separate from this one. That's what I've been saying all along! Yes, I think we've kind of been saying the same thing all along, with one difference. You seem to be of the opinion that this new timeline is in a separate universe from the prime timeline (unless I'm mistaken), completely separate from the prime timeline. Whereas I am of the opinion that Nero returning to the past, while it did change the past, it created a new timeline; one in which Nero went to the past to change events. This created a new timeline, but they are both connected to the same universe. Similar to Worf's experience in "Parallels," this was just another parallel universe.
|
|
Dax123
Commander
[ss:NX-01]
Posts: 1,207
|
Post by Dax123 on Feb 4, 2010 16:04:29 GMT -6
I have also heard of another theory about parrallel universes. Aparently electrons can be in two places and one time and seeing as atoms have elctrons in them and we are made of atoms then it is possible that there are more than one of us. I found this confusing at first but now I think I get it !
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 6, 2010 10:12:11 GMT -6
...I am of the opinion that Nero returning to the past, while it did change the past, it created a new timeline; one in which Nero went to the past to change events. This created a new timeline, but they are both connected to the same universe. Okay, this is where I don't follow you. If he CHANGED the past and created a NEW timeline, the old timeline couldn't exist anymore! How can they both exist at the same time?But that's just it -- PARALLEL universes are NOT connected together. They are separate. Look at it this way -- according to this theory, when the Big Bang happened, an infinite number of parallel dimensions were created, separated by dimensional vibration. They are similar because they began from the same initial conditions. But as time went on, the diverged from one another, simply because of the laws of probability. I'm saying the universe that the movie took place in was one of these parallel universe, probably identical to ours until Nero went back and changed history. From that point, it diverged from ours in a metaphorical sense. But not in a physical sense because it was never actually connected.
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Feb 6, 2010 10:23:01 GMT -6
...I am of the opinion that Nero returning to the past, while it did change the past, it created a new timeline; one in which Nero went to the past to change events. This created a new timeline, but they are both connected to the same universe. Okay, this is where I don't follow you. If he CHANGED the past and created a NEW timeline, the old timeline couldn't exist anymore! How can they both exist at the same time?But that's just it -- PARALLEL universes are NOT connected together. They are separate. Look at it this way -- according to this theory, when the Big Bang happened, an infinite number of parallel dimensions were created, separated by dimensional vibration. They are similar because they began from the same initial conditions. But as time went on, the diverged from one another, simply because of the laws of probability. I'm saying the universe that the movie took place in was one of these parallel universe, probably identical to ours until Nero went back and changed history. From that point, it diverged from ours in a metaphorical sense. But not in a physical sense because it was never actually connected. But here's the thing: I never said that they were "connected," so that you could just cross over from one universe to the next easily. When I said they were all "connected," what I meant was they are all in the same universe. The prime timeline and the "nutimeline" (so to speak) are separate from each other, but all part of the same Star Trek universe. In other words, just because this movie happened doesn't make the prime timeline null and void, it continues on as it would have had Nero not come back and changed things. But the "nutimeline" was created when Nero came back to the past. You had made a comment that the prime timeline and the new timeline created in the movie took places in different universes altogether (or something like that, unless I misunderstood you). My belief is that while these are parallel universes, they all take place in the same Star Trek universe. The nutimeline is a parallel universe in the same way the mirror universe and all the different universes we saw in "Parallels" are parallel univeres.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 6, 2010 10:39:22 GMT -6
Maybe the confusion revolves around the fact that I tend to think of this as Real. In my mind, I live in what I call the Prime timeline. This is what you said in your first post: "I don't understand why people keep saying the new movie was set in an alternate timeline. The reality is: the new movie was set in the prime timeline."
If Nero had CHANGED the prime timeline, I wouldn't exist. So to me, Nero must live in a parallel universe, an alternate universe. Does that make it clearer?
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Feb 6, 2010 17:15:17 GMT -6
Maybe the confusion revolves around the fact that I tend to think of this as Real. In my mind, I live in what I call the Prime timeline. This is what you said in your first post: "I don't understand why people keep saying the new movie was set in an alternate timeline. The reality is: the new movie was set in the prime timeline." If Nero had CHANGED the prime timeline, I wouldn't exist. So to me, Nero must live in a parallel universe, an alternate universe. Does that make it clearer? Yes, it makes your position clearer. But again, as I explained in a later post I mistakenly said "timeline" when I really meant "unvierse." I don't understand why people think this is an entirely separate universe, as if they're not parallel universes but different franchises altogether. And again, Nero didn't exist in an alternate timeline. He came from the prime timeline. The red matter was responsible for bringing Spock and Nero back through time, and what instigated Nero deciding to destroy Vulcan (and thereby changing the past) was that he blamed Spock, and by extension the Vulcan people, for the destruction of his planet. He was going to cause Spock the same pain Spock caused him. The elder Spock and Nero came from the prime timeline. So again, that's what I've been saying thiswhole time is that although Spock and Nero came from the prime timeline, but changing events of the past (in fact, just by being there in the first place) they have created an alternate, divergent timeline. The original exists intact (except, of course, without Spock and Nero, from the point they left, who have removed themselves from it). But the original exists unchanged by the events of the new film. But the new timeline that was created is the one in which we're in now.
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Feb 7, 2010 14:06:02 GMT -6
Or not in depending on your view.
|
|
shakfar
Lt. Commander
[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 582
|
Post by shakfar on Feb 7, 2010 14:11:14 GMT -6
i am too lazey to read all 6 pages of this thread can someone catch me up to date?
|
|