Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Jan 4, 2010 8:24:23 GMT -6
I call it an alternate universe because that's what it is. I take it you're talking about the "Many Worlds" hypothesis, where if you travel back in time, you merely start a branch line off of the "Prime timeline", leaving the original undisturbed. I'm afraid that time travel doesn't work like that. Can you give me one example from the history of Star Trek where it has worked like that.
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Jan 4, 2010 12:51:42 GMT -6
That's not how it worked in earlier episodes, but in later that's how it did. It's hard to give an example of it because whenever the timeline was altered, all we saw was the "altered" timeline, but just because it was never mentioned doesn't mean that's not how it happened. I'll have to go back and find it, but I saw an interview with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (or it may have been a written interview on startrek.com) where they explained it just that way, that the original timeline is undisturbed but we're now living in an alternate timeline created by Nero coming back to the past. They were operating by the theory that an infinite number of possibilities can occur, one where something happens and one where it doesn't happen. Nero coming back to the past in the new Star Trek created a new, divergent timeline which branched off from the original, the one where Nero *didn't* come back to the past.
|
|
|
Post by andrewlee on Jan 4, 2010 14:38:32 GMT -6
That's not how it worked in earlier episodes, but in later that's how it did. It's hard to give an example of it because whenever the timeline was altered, all we saw was the "altered" timeline, but just because it was never mentioned doesn't mean that's not how it happened. I'll have to go back and find it, but I saw an interview with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (or it may have been a written interview on startrek.com) where they explained it just that way, that the original timeline is undisturbed but we're now living in an alternate timeline created by Nero coming back to the past. They were operating by the theory that an infinite number of possibilities can occur, one where something happens and one where it doesn't happen. Nero coming back to the past in the new Star Trek created a new, divergent timeline which branched off from the original, the one where Nero *didn't* come back to the past. Very well put! I have thought the same things about the alternate reality branching off of the TOS one. I understand this well and that some of us favor other realities or the main one for thier own good reasons.
|
|
kynan101
Ensign
[ss:Federation]
Posts: 83
|
Post by kynan101 on Jan 5, 2010 13:03:49 GMT -6
HOW COULD THEY DESTROY VULCAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Jan 6, 2010 8:41:07 GMT -6
If one of you actually understands the "Many Worlds" hypothesis, I wish you'd explain it to me. From what I've read, it may seem to be mathematically valid, but not logically valid (and I understand that Stephen Hawking feels pretty much the same).
Simply put, if traveling back in time merely created a branching timeline, leaving the original intact, what would be the point in doing it? And what would be the point in trying to "correct" the timeline? There simply wouldn't be! Any attempt to correct it would only create yet another branching timeline!
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Jan 7, 2010 1:53:43 GMT -6
The point in going back in time to change things would be to restore your perception of what the correct timeline is. For instance, if someone you love dies and you go back in time to save them, you have created a branching timeline, the one in which she was saved by you and the one in which she wasn't saved. But you exist in the changed timeline, the one in which the person you loved was saved by you. That's the point in going back to change things (which also lends itself to a plethora of ethical questions). You're going back to save the person, existing in the divergent timeline you've created by changing it.
And "correcting" the timeline would be under the same principle. You don't like the change that occurred, so you go back to set right the change that was made, trying to get things back to normal. For instance, if the Federation had gone back in time and successfully prevented Nero from destroying Vulcan, they would exist in the timeline in which Vulcan was saved, but that still hasn't changed the fact that Nero came back to the past. It would still be part of the new divergent timeline that was changed simply by Nero's presence there.
I believe Back to the Future worked on this same philosophy. I would recommend watching Part 2, since Doc Brown pretty much explains things to Marty McFly, though I don't remember exactly how much detail he goes into.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Jan 7, 2010 9:42:41 GMT -6
But the point is, by doing this, you have removed yourself from the Original timeline, so you can't exist there any more. You only exist in that divergent timeline (probably a better description that "alternate").
|
|
kynan101
Ensign
[ss:Federation]
Posts: 83
|
Post by kynan101 on Jan 7, 2010 12:26:54 GMT -6
he still destroyed vulcan
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Jan 7, 2010 16:11:40 GMT -6
But the point is, by doing this, you have removed yourself from the Original timeline, so you can't exist there any more. You only exist in that divergent timeline (probably a better description that "alternate"). If which timeline you're living in is important to you, then you might not want to change anything. But if you're not content living in a world without Vulcan, then you could go back and stop Nero. Even though you still wouldn't be in the original timeline, Vulcan would continue and exist, and everything would probably play out as it would have if Nero hadn't come back in the first place. But the timeline would be irreparably changed because even if you went forward in time to prevent Nero from coming back in time in the first place, you would still be living in a divergent timeline, one in which you traveled to the future to prevent a future act by Nero from occurring.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Jan 11, 2010 9:02:24 GMT -6
I'm sorry, but this is making less and less sense. "Even if you went forward in time to prevent Nero from coming back in time...?" It seems to me that what you're saying is that the Vulcan Science Academy must have been correct -- there is no such thing as true time travel. All you end up doing is moving through an infinite number of diverging timelines, and you can never return to the timeline you originally inhabitted..
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Jan 11, 2010 10:22:56 GMT -6
Well, it's still up in the air anyway as to whether or not time travel is even possible. But you would still be traveling forward or backward in time -- but the timeline you would be moving through depends on which course of actions have been taken. I'm not sure if I can explain it any better. lol We may just have to agree to disagree here.
|
|
PIKE
Cadet
One beep for YES[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 35
|
Post by PIKE on Jan 11, 2010 21:11:19 GMT -6
Alternate Star Trek timeline? Better to forget it happened.
|
|
PIKE
Cadet
One beep for YES[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 35
|
Post by PIKE on Jan 11, 2010 21:13:31 GMT -6
If Roddenbury was still alive, the new movie would have never made it to the screen.
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Jan 12, 2010 16:15:36 GMT -6
If Roddenbury was still alive, the new movie would have never made it to the screen. Everyone closest to Gene Roddenberry would disagree with you.
|
|
Luke
Commander
[ss:Cool Blue]
Posts: 1,087
|
Post by Luke on Jan 13, 2010 12:03:46 GMT -6
In regard to the two previous statements -- easy to say, difficult to prove. I say don't worry about waht Roddnberry would or would not have approved of.
|
|