edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Feb 8, 2010 0:31:47 GMT -6
Or not in depending on your view. Yes, exactly. I hold to the multiple universes view, so I believe the prime timeline would exist intact while the new, divergent timeline is the one in which we're in now. This way the past 40+ years of Star Trek is still relevant. i am too lazey to read all 6 pages of this thread can someone catch me up to date? Shakfar, it's basically a discussion on how we should view the events of new the film, whether the prime timeline (before Nero changed the past) still exists or if Nero changed the past so it wouldn't exist anymore (and therefore if we should consider the new film set entirely in an alternate universe). I think that's the gist of it.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 8, 2010 8:41:28 GMT -6
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. "Franchise"? What is this "franchise"? A parallel universe is by definition a SEPARATE universe, because it is not connected. If you're saying the events in the movie are still in the Star Trek multiverse, well sure. The same way that non-canon novels, fan fiction, and so on, all take place in the Star Trek multiverse. Is that what you mean? Okay, you've lost me again. By "Prime timeline", I mean the same one we've been watching all these years on the various series and movies. If Nero CHANGED the prime timeline, all of that would be gone, erased, no more. One more time, then -- how can the original still exist if it was CHANGED? I still can't understand that. No, absolutely not. In the timeline I live in, the planet Vulcan still exists. Kirk was born in Iowa, he graduated the academy at the age of 19 or 20, served on the Farragut, didn't get assigned to the Enterprise until much later. That's the timeline I live in. You might live in a different one...
|
|
shakfar
Lt. Commander
[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 582
|
Post by shakfar on Feb 8, 2010 16:56:06 GMT -6
lol ya thats the one i live in too ... but yes i think we can just consider this one an alternate timeline
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Feb 8, 2010 17:58:59 GMT -6
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. "Franchise"? What is this "franchise"? A parallel universe is by definition a SEPARATE universe, because it is not connected. If you're saying the events in the movie are still in the Star Trek multiverse, well sure. The same way that non-canon novels, fan fiction, and so on, all take place in the Star Trek multiverse. Is that what you mean? Okay, you've lost me again. By "Prime timeline", I mean the same one we've been watching all these years on the various series and movies. If Nero CHANGED the prime timeline, all of that would be gone, erased, no more. One more time, then -- how can the original still exist if it was CHANGED? I still can't understand that. No, absolutely not. In the timeline I live in, the planet Vulcan still exists. Kirk was born in Iowa, he graduated the academy at the age of 19 or 20, served on the Farragut, didn't get assigned to the Enterprise until much later. That's the timeline I live in. You might live in a different one... (i.e. the "Star Trek franchise", which is what it would be if it were not actually Real ) Actually, I consider only canon to take place in the Star Trek multiverse. If it's not considered canon, then to me it's not real and I really have no desire to read it (as it hasn't actually happened to the crew). But Roddenberry considered everything on screen to be canon, so this new film, by Roddenberry's own definition, would be canon. Yes, this new divergent timeline is a parallel universe. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. What we seem to disagree with is whether the prime timeline would continue to exist if the events were changed, such as in the new film. I agree, that the prime timeline is the one we've known for the past 40 years. I've tried to explain this as simply as I can. lol I'll try again: If you remember from prime Spock's flashback scenes and explanation, this whole mess started in the 24th century, while Ambassador Spock was still on Vulcan, working for the Unification movement. It's been a couple weeks since I've seen the movie, but if I remember correctly Romulus' sun was about to go supernova. Spock, in his one-man craft, was flying a dangerous mission with red matter in an attempt to prevent the supernova and to save Romulus. However, Spock failed, the red matter ignited, and Romulus was destroyed anyway. All that happened in the prime timeline. Now, the red matter pulled Spock's craft and Nero's craft back into the past some one-hundred or so years, back to the past, with the Kelvin. Remember, the multiple universe theory (or "multiverse," which is probably a more accurate description) states that there are an infinite number of possibilities that can occur, and each possibility that can occur, does occur, each in a different universe (which would be a parallel universe). In this case, when Nero emerged back in time, a "divergent" universe was created, one in which Nero went back in time. The prime timeline would go on intact, which would be the universe in which Nero hadn't gone back in time. The prime timeline continues to exist, and this new "divergent" timeline now goes on, the one in which Zachary Quinto's Spock talked about how it would now be impossible to predict events because they are now unfolding in a way they hadn't before. Again, if you want time travel stories that abide by the "multiple universe" theory, I would recommend watching Back to the Future Part II (or really, the whole trilogy), or reading The Time Ships by Stephen Baxter (which is the official sequel to H.G. Wells' The Time Machine). Now again, the multiple universe theory is just that, a theory. But then again, time travel itself is still theoretical, at best. According to this theory (and according to several interviews/commentaries with Orci and Kurtzman, this is the theory they were going by for the new film), the prime timeline continues to exist, intact, and this new "divergent" timeline was created when Nero came back to the past. So again, a parallel universe was created when Nero came back to the past. So Nero and Prime Spock are from the prime timeline, but they are now cut off from it, trapped in this new timeline that was created (similar to Doc Brown and Marty McFly in Back to the Future 2 -- although of course, Nero died so that's a non-issue). But Leonard Nimoy's Spock is from the prime timeline, now cut off from it. In fact, even the credits call him Spock Prime. As for your "universe," it still goes on. But as for the events you described, they were changed by Nero's presence. In fact, the writers talked about all this in their commentary for the new movie. Kirk's father and pregnant mother were on the Kelvan (I think they were being transported to Earth so she could give birth to Jim). But the attack by Nero caused her to go into early labor, so he was born in space as opposed to Iowa. And Kirk's father died in the explosion, rather than being there for Kirk while he was growing up. That caused him to rebel even more than he did originally. The writers and J.J. weren't throwing canon out the window when these certain things were changed, but these events unfolded differently because Nero's very presence there changed things (there's also a psychological effect connected to time travel called "The Observer Effect," in which just by going back in time and observing, you could permanently alter events in unforseen ways).
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Feb 9, 2010 15:55:22 GMT -6
You could kill a mosquito which was infected with malaria which bit someone who would otherwise have gone on to be a brutal dictator had they not died etc etc?
|
|
shakfar
Lt. Commander
[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 582
|
Post by shakfar on Feb 9, 2010 16:19:51 GMT -6
has anyone seen a movie called "A Sound Of Thunder"?. it is a movie about the butterfly effect and its a Sci-fi
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 11, 2010 8:58:20 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 ! I didn't want you think I was ignoring this post. I just had to think about it a little. I think you're thinking of wave-particle duality. At the quantum level, subatomic particles behave as both particles and waves, depending upon how they are measured. This doesn't mean that large objects, like people, can also be in two places at once. That would be like saying that Schrodinger's cat really was both dead and alive at the same time!
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 11, 2010 9:07:39 GMT -6
But Roddenberry considered everything on screen to be canon, so this new film, by Roddenberry's own definition, would be canon. That's another subject. I personally think that the Series trumps the movies. If something happens in a movie which contradicts the series, I consider the series canon. But that's neither here nor there.Again, that could only happen if they were separate parallel universes from the very beginning. Because if you CHANGE the past, the original timeline would be erased.Actually, it doesn't. It abides by the normal time travel convention that changing the past changes the entire timeline!(sigh!) Here we go again. Where these events CHANGED or weren't they? You seem to want it both ways.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 11, 2010 9:13:14 GMT -6
"Back to the Future" is fun because of the way it plays with paradoxes. What happened was that Biff stole the Sports Almanac in 2015, used Doc Brown's time machine to travel back to 1955 and give it to himself. That changed the entire future from that point on (which would theoretically mean that Doc Brown never got the chance to build the time machine in the first place, but that would have ruined the movie. Or it could be that time travelers by their very nature are immune to such changes in the timeline.)
Marty and Doc Brown arrived in 1985 and realized that their entire timeline had been changed. Marty wanted to go back to the future to prevent Biff from stealing the Sports Almanac in the first place, but Doc Brown correctly pointed out that once the timeline is changed, the entire timeline, including the future, changes with it. Biff no longer has to steal the Sports Almanac in 2015 because it already exists in the past! The only way to restore the originial timeline is to find the point in time at which it was changed.
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Feb 11, 2010 10:28:55 GMT -6
"Back to the Future" is fun because of the way it plays with paradoxes. What happened was that Biff stole the Sports Almanac in 2015, used Doc Brown's time machine to travel back to 1955 and give it to himself. That changed the entire future from that point on (which would theoretically mean that Doc Brown never got the chance to build the time machine in the first place, but that would have ruined the movie. Or it could be that time travelers by their very nature are immune to such changes in the timeline.) Marty and Doc Brown arrived in 1985 and realized that their entire timeline had been changed. Marty wanted to go back to the future to prevent Biff from stealing the Sports Almanac in the first place, but Doc Brown correctly pointed out that once the timeline is changed, the entire timeline, including the future, changes with it. Biff no longer has to steal the Sports Almanac in 2015 because it already exists in the past! The only way to restore the originial timeline is to find the point in time at which it was changed. But here's the thing: If Biff had changed the future, the future would have changed before Doc Brown and Marty McFly had a chance to go back and change it. But it wasn't until they returned to their own time that they found it changed. Additionally, if the original timeline had been erased when Nero's actions changed it, then Spock shouldn't have been able to remember the events of the other timeline because it would no longer exist. Spock would have remembered events the way they were unfolding with Nero.
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Feb 11, 2010 12:26:21 GMT -6
By the time this argument's resolved I think we'll have actually invented time travel!
|
|
shakfar
Lt. Commander
[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 582
|
Post by shakfar on Feb 11, 2010 14:36:03 GMT -6
... to bad i am way to lazey to read really long posts
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Feb 11, 2010 23:04:12 GMT -6
By the time this argument's resolved I think we'll have actually invented time travel! You're probably right. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. We keep arguing in circles.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 12, 2010 10:01:20 GMT -6
But here's the thing: If Biff had changed the future, the future would have changed before Doc Brown and Marty McFly had a chance to go back and change it. But it wasn't until they returned to their own time that they found it changed. No, because there is apparently a "ripple effect". Remember in the first movie, Marty didn't instantly disappear when he changed the timeline. But he would have disappeared eventually. "Erased from existence," in the words of Doc Brown. But... if Biff had merely created a divergent timeline that wasn't connected to their original timeline, how did they end up in the divergent timeline to begin with? Why wouldn't he, if he had also come back in time along with Nero?
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 12, 2010 10:02:58 GMT -6
You're probably right. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. We keep arguing in circles. Hey, the only reason I've been going on about this (apart from the fact that it's fun to speculate) is that someone a few pages back claimed that he understood the Many Worlds hypothesis. I've just been pointing out the flaws in it from my point of view, and hoping someone could explain it to me.
|
|