Borg with their time travel technology vs Star Wars

[Teleros]

There is of course no proof that a sphere capable of time travel has less capabilities than any other sphere which we know can go faster than light. Plus the enterprise was able to duplicate this technology to get back to the 24th century. You're arguing that the borg aren't capable of making the technology more compact than the enterprise even after acquiring all the knowledge various assimilated humans and thousands of other species.

The problem is that we hardly ever see them use time travel otherwise. If Borg time travel science is as powerful as you claim, Species 8472 should have been no match for them, simply because the Borg would have warned their earlier selves not to bridge the two dimensions until they could withstand firepower equal to that of the regular bioships at the very least. Thus, it seems more plausible that Borg time-travel is either very difficult, very limited, very dangerous, or a combination thereof.

If you want to see what a civilisation that really uses time travel properly is like, read Stephen Baxter's Xelee universe books. The Xeelee use time travel to ensure they are always the dominant force in the entire universe (well, except for the photino birds, but never mind them for now). If the Borg could time travel as easily as you claim, the entire galaxy would have been assimilated aeons ago.

They could also go back in time to where there was little sentient life and then get into the center of the star wars galaxy and proceed to travel forward in time until they find something evolved enough that's worth assimilating.

Unless of course they miss something that then comes along to bite them in the arse before they can respond (ie travel back in time).

Well actually a better reason is they decided to go back in time because the borg queen was aboard. Just like the borg queen was onboard lucutis's cube and she used time travel to escape in that situation too.

So the only times we see the Borg time travel is when there's a Borg Queen involved. How many do they have again ?

[marsh8472]

Prove it. Let us assume that the most that they can do in any one "hop" is to travel back 200 years. Now, galactic society was well in place by about 25,000 years previously, so let us use that as the target, for the sake of the Borg. This would require 125 "hops". However, you specified about 3,000,000 years previously, which would take 15,000 hops. Now, if the Borg really can time-travel willy-nilly, then why did they not travel further back into Earth's past? Why did they not start their time travel many light-years from Federation territory? Why don't other civilizations regularly use time travel? All the evidence points to the Borg and the majority of starfaring civilizations being unable to use time travel extensively, which suggests that it is highly impractical. After all, it was a desperation tactic in FC, severely stressed the Bird of Prey in STIV, and is a rare event, all concerned. Furthermore, this was not an argument against time travel as a concept. That would be idiotic, since it's a fundamental part of three movies and a number of episodes. Perhaps you should read your opponents' actual posts rather than the ones that exist only in your head.

actually let's not say they can only go back in time 200 years at a time. We know people in the 29th century can go back in time as far back as studying the building of the pyramids of giza. Is there any reason why they would only be capable of a few hundred years back in time per trip? Riker pointed out in first contact that they deliberately picked that time to go back to in order to stop warp drive from being created and the 3rd world war just ended so there'd be little resistance, not because of time travel limitations.

All the evidence points to the Borg and the majority of starfaring civilizations being unable to use time travel extensively, which suggests that it is highly impractical.

You obviously don't watch star trek then. Research temporal cold war and temporal agents for more information.

Furthermore, this was not an argument against time travel as a concept. That would be idiotic, since it's a fundamental part of three movies and a number of episodes. Perhaps you should read your opponents' actual posts rather than the ones that exist only in your head.

It sounded like an argument against time travel since leaving the universe would require the amount of matter and energy to decrease in the future and matter and energy to increase in the past. I can try to argue it more if you want as long as you concede that time travel is done regularly on star trek whether it violates physical laws or not therefore even if I can't prove it's possible in our reality I still win anyway.

Where is there any proof of that! Explain and present your evedence.

picard has memories of being lucutis and remembers that the queen was onboard the cube. Then picard says how she survived when that ship and everyone onboard were destroyed. She said that he became small and thinks in 3 dimensional terms.

The problem is that we hardly ever see them use time travel otherwise. If Borg time travel science is as powerful as you claim, Species 8472 should have been no match for them, simply because the Borg would have warned their earlier selves not to bridge the two dimensions until they could withstand firepower equal to that of the regular bioships at the very least. Thus, it seems more plausible that Borg time-travel is either very difficult, very limited, very dangerous, or a combination thereof.

but the borg have demonstrated the ability to time travel none the less and this situation is using this time travel technology against star wars.

Unless of course they miss something that then comes along to bite them in the arse before they can respond (ie travel back in time).

that's why they keep sending ships back in time until they see the entire star wars galaxy populated by borg in the present.

So the only times we see the Borg time travel is when there's a Borg Queen involved. How many do they have again

yes but they don't need the queen to go back in time. They just need the intensive to go back in time. In this case the incentive hypothetically exists since they're going to do it in this scenario.

[hunter5]

actually let's not say they can only go back in time 200 years at a time. We know people in the 29th century can go back in time as far back as studying the building of the pyramids of giza. Is there any reason why they would only be capable of a few hundred years back in time per trip? Riker pointed out in first contact that they deliberately picked that time to go back to in order to stop warp drive from being created and the 3rd world war just ended so there'd be little resistance, not because of time travel limitations.

Since we don't see the borg go back any farther we can assume a limit.

You obviously don't watch star trek then. Research temporal cold war and temporal agents for more information.

And yet in the 24th century we hear nothing about it.

but the borg have demonstrated the ability to time travel none the less and this situation is using this time travel technology against star wars.

So if they can use it regulary why didn't they use it in a situation that clearly would have helped them.

that's why they keep sending ships back in time until they see the entire star wars galaxy populated by borg in the present.

So what is to stop the Star wars powers in the present Destroying all of the borg before they can send anymore back?

yes but they don't need the queen to go back in time. They just need the intensive to go back in time. In this case the incentive hypothetically exists since they're going to do it in this scenario.

Prove they don't need the Queen.

[SapphireFox]

Quote:
Where is there any proof of that! Explain and present your evedence.


picard has memories of being lucutis and remembers that the queen was on board the cube. Then picard says how she survived when that ship and everyone on board were destroyed. She said that he became small and thinks in 3 dimensional terms.

So you mean to tell me that your evidence is an off the cuff insult that doesn't even mention time travel .
That's pathetic, the comment might also mean that the queen is the collective conscious of the borg and her body is just a constructed shell for the sake of personification.

[Teleros]

You obviously don't watch star trek then. Research temporal cold war and temporal agents for more information.

That assumes the entire Enterprise series wasn't Riker's cr*ppy holodrama. The ending seems rather ambiguous (although personally, and without regard to this debate, I'd hope it was Riker's holodrama. That series really was god-awful).
If not, then the evidence of the Temporal Cold War etc points to the Federation & similar working to preserve the timeline against outside time-travel threats, rather than mucking around in it.

but the borg have demonstrated the ability to time travel none the less and this situation is using this time travel technology against star wars.

So in other words, they have this ability... but never use it. Right. Gotcha.

yes but they don't need the queen to go back in time. They just need the intensive to go back in time. In this case the incentive hypothetically exists since they're going to do it in this scenario.

So... "we change the nature of the Borg to make them happy to use time travel all the time"... yeah there's a reason people don't usually completely alter the nature of a power for versus scenarios.

Logically, there MUST be a reason why the Borg don't go time travelling all the time.
1. It's unlikely to be the 29th Century Federation (or similar), because if so the Ent-E wouldn't've needed to intervene in ST:FC.
2. The only time we definitely see the Borg time travel is ST:FC. They also do so right on top of their objective, which may be significant. They do so only in the presence of a Queen, which may also be significant.
3. We never see them time travel when faced with more serious threats than the faraway Federation, even when time travelling ought to neuter said threats.

Point #3 in particular is particularly damning. The Borg were facing literal extinction from Species 8472, but they did nothing... whereas the Federation was perceived as just the biggest power in the Alpha Quadrant - a place so far away from Borg space and populated by people with such comparatively weak starships that they were not a serious threat to the Borg at the time at all in fact.

I'd also like to point out the same issue with the Borg Queen's dialogue as SapphireFox noted - the Queen's comment could mean a number of things.

[Darth Hoth]

Okay I'll try one more time to explain it. In the most simplistic terms, you're assuming that when a cell phone loses power that it cannot be recharged. But we do recharge cell phones so obviously that's not true. It's because the cell phone is not from a closed system. There's another source that's providing it power outside the cell phone. Similarly the universe is not a closed-system in this case since there's an alternate universe supplying it power and usable energy.

A universe is by definition self-contained. Even assuming that there is somehow interaction between two different universes, there can be no net increase or decrease in the mass/energy content of either without it violating conservation of energy. Darth Wong addresses this on his page on common fallacious Trekkie arguments, which (among other things) discusses time travel.

Also, I notice that you chose not to address my point on perpetual motion machines. Living in a universe where something can be obtained for nothing will make for a very different society, as compared to an infinitely more realistic existence where conservation of energy does apply.

[marsh8472]

So you mean to tell me that your evidence is an off the cuff insult that doesn't even mention time travel .
That's pathetic the comment might also mean that the queen is the collective conscious of the borg and her body is just a constructed shell for the sake of personification.

Well they say the 4th dimension is time. The borg use time-travel in this same movie. We know there are borg survivors from wolf 359 since we see them on voyager episodes. The best explanation is that the borg used time travel to escape. The second best explanation i can think of is that the cube assimilated one of the star ships from wolf 359 and crawled there way back to the delta quadrant without anyone noticing a missing starship from the debris. Although this explanation turns the dialog into shit since it no longer makes much sense of why she made the 3rd dimension comment.

That assumes the entire Enterprise series wasn't Riker's cr*ppy holodrama. The ending seems rather ambiguous (although personally, and without regard to this debate, I'd hope it was Riker's holodrama. That series really was god-awful).
If not, then the evidence of the Temporal Cold War etc points to the Federation & similar working to preserve the timeline against outside time-travel threats, rather than mucking around in it.

and everyone from starfleet has archer's speech memorized from riker's holonovel, ok.

So in other words, they have this ability... but never use it. Right. Gotcha.

or they use it but we just don't see them use it.

So... "we change the nature of the Borg to make them happy to use time travel all the time"... yeah there's a reason people don't usually completely alter the nature of a power for versus scenarios.

Logically, there MUST be a reason why the Borg don't go time travelling all the time.
1. It's unlikely to be the 29th Century Federation (or similar), because if so the Ent-E wouldn't've needed to intervene in ST:FC.
2. The only time we definitely see the Borg time travel is ST:FC. They also do so right on top of their objective, which may be significant. They do so only in the presence of a Queen, which may also be significant.
3. We never see them time travel when faced with more serious threats than the faraway Federation, even when time travelling ought to neuter said threats.

If we use the star wars assumption that star wars weaponry can take out cubes in a single shot then the reasoning behind going back in time is to bypass resistance.

Point #3 in particular is particularly damning. The Borg were facing literal extinction from Species 8472, but they did nothing... whereas the Federation was perceived as just the biggest power in the Alpha Quadrant - a place so far away from Borg space and populated by people with such comparatively weak starships that they were not a serious threat to the Borg at the time at all in fact.

I'd also like to point out the same issue with the Borg Queen's dialogue as SapphireFox noted - the Queen's comment could mean a number of things.

the borg were obsessed with trying to assimilate species 8472 to "greatly add to their own perfection". It's possible they were saving the time travel stuff as a last resort to warn themselves not to open any singularities to species 8472's dimension only after they confirm that they failed to assimilate species 8472.

[marsh8472]

A universe is by definition self-contained. Even assuming that there is somehow interaction between two different universes, there can be no net increase or decrease in the mass/energy content of either without it violating conservation of energy. Darth Wong addresses this on his page on common fallacious Trekkie arguments, which (among other things) discusses time travel.

Also, I notice that you chose not to address my point on perpetual motion machines. Living in a universe where something can be obtained for nothing will make for a very different society, as compared to an infinitely more realistic existence where conservation of energy does apply.

If the universe acquires matter or energy from an outside source such as another universe then it is by definition an open system.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Time_travel here are cases where there is time travel in star wars. There's no point in knocking star trek for this when star wars does the same thing.

Anyway it's totally irrelevant since all the episodes and movies confirm that they can go back in time. There's no stop sign that reads "do not pass, violation of the conservation of mass and energy beyond this point". If there really is a problem with current theories in physics then current theories in physics aren't up to par with the star trek universe. Even the law of gravity isn't technically a proven fact in science. You'll need to keep an open mind about these things if you really want to use science instead of following the current rigid rules.

[SapphireFox]

Well they say the 4th dimension is time. The borg use time-travel in this same movie. We know there are borg survivors from wolf 359 since we see them on voyager episodes. The best explanation is that the borg used time travel to escape. The second best explanation i can think of is that the cube assimilated one of the star ships from wolf 359 and crawled there way back to the delta quadrant without anyone noticing a missing starship from the debris. Although this explanation turns the dialog into shit since it no longer makes much sense of why she made the 3rd dimension comment.

String theory and M-theory state that there are 10 to 11 dimensions. According to the movie she never stated using the 4th dimension or even any dimension to escape, and you are right the second explanation doesn't make much sense.

[Teleros]

and everyone from starfleet has archer's speech memorized from riker's holonovel, ok.

Or the holonovel attributed another speech to Archer .

or they use it but we just don't see them use it.

Nor do we see any evidence of them having used it. Like with the Species 8472 crisis. Hence my doubt that they DO have easy access to it.

If we use the star wars assumption that star wars weaponry can take out cubes in a single shot then the reasoning behind going back in time is to bypass resistance.

You haven't explained why the Borg don't time travel much. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

the borg were obsessed with trying to assimilate species 8472 to "greatly add to their own perfection". It's possible they were saving the time travel stuff as a last resort to warn themselves not to open any singularities to species 8472's dimension only after they confirm that they failed to assimilate species 8472.

Rubbish. Here's what a time-travelling Borg Collective would've done, assuming their motives are the ones you mention here.
1. Events play out as per Scorpion pt 1 & 2.
2. The Borg time-travel to the past, prior to the opening of the portal to fluidic space.
3. The Borg reprogram the nanoprobes to assimilate 8472 cells.
4. The Borg mass-produce nanoprobes.
5. The Borg open the portal, assimilate Species 8472.
6. If #5 fails, perhaps due simply to numbers, the Borg repeat steps 2-5 with ever-increasing production of nanoprobes (assisted by time travel) until #5 succeeds.
7. Scorpion pt 1 & 2 never occurs, because by the time Voyager comes across that part of Borg space, Species 8472 are a part of the Borg Collective.

String theory and M-theory state that there are 10 to 11 dimensions. According to the movie she never stated using the 4th dimension or even any dimension to escape, and you are right the second explanation doesn't make much sense.

It might simply be a metaphor. "Oh Picard, your thinking is so small & limited" etc. It doesn't have to mean much at all.
Doesn't change the fact though that, even if time travel was involved here, we only ever see Borg time travel when Borg Queens are involved.

[SapphireFox]

Quote:
Where is there any proof of that! Explain and present your evedence.


picard has memories of being lucutis and remembers that the queen was on board the cube. Then picard says how she survived when that ship and everyone on board were destroyed. She said that he became small and thinks in 3 dimensional terms.

So you mean to tell me that your evidence is an off the cuff insult that doesn't even mention time travel .
That's pathetic, the comment might also mean that the queen is the collective conscious of the borg and her body is just a constructed shell for the sake of personification.[/quote]

Well they say the 4th dimension is time. The borg use time-travel in this same movie. We know there are borg survivors from wolf 359 since we see them on voyager episodes. The best explanation is that the borg used time travel to escape. The second best explanation i can think of is that the cube assimilated one of the star ships from wolf 359 and crawled there way back to the delta quadrant without anyone noticing a missing starship from the debris. Although this explanation turns the dialog into shit since it no longer makes much sense of why she made the 3rd dimension comment.

String theory and M-theory state that there are 10 to 11 dimensions. According to the movie she never stated using the 4th dimension or even any dimension to escape, and you are right the second explanation doesn't make much sense.

SapphireFox wrote:
String theory and M-theory state that there are 10 to 11 dimensions. According to the movie she never stated using the 4th dimension or even any dimension to escape, and you are right the second explanation doesn't make much sense.

It might simply be a metaphor. "Oh Picard, your thinking is so small & limited" etc. It doesn't have to mean much at all.
Doesn't change the fact though that, even if time travel was involved here, we only ever see Borg time travel when Borg Queens are involved.

That what I was trying to get across to him but he claims its evidence of time travel escape.

[Darth Hoth]

If the universe acquires matter or energy from an outside source such as another universe then it is by definition an open system.

A universe by definition encompasses everything. It is, therefore, by definition a closed system.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Time_travel here are cases where there is time travel in star wars. There's no point in knocking star trek for this when star wars does the same thing.

I look at that page and see descriptions of hallucinations, hoaxes, time dilation and non-canon comics. Hardly sterling evidence for time travel that violates conservation of energy. Not to mention, Wookieepedia is not a canonical source. If you are going to argue these points, kindly use the original sources for your evidence.

Anyway it's totally irrelevant since all the episodes and movies confirm that they can go back in time. There's no stop sign that reads "do not pass, violation of the conservation of mass and energy beyond this point". If there really is a problem with current theories in physics then current theories in physics aren't up to par with the star trek universe. Even the law of gravity isn't technically a proven fact in science. You'll need to keep an open mind about these things if you really want to use science instead of following the current rigid rules.

Wrong. You do not get to blithely ignore conservation of energy because you say so. On this board we base our assumptions on science, not technobabble. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if you want to throw out the most fundamental laws of physics, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate what evidence makes this necessary. Which I doubt is within your ability.

Did you even read the article I linked you to? Not only does Wong's model explain the issue of conservation, it also addresses the problem of apparent causality violations.

[Serafina]

Actually, due to the universe expanding, it is still somewhat of an open system.
Anyway, timetravel would still violate COE, since it would destroy matter/energy in it's current time-period.
Adding it to the past is not that much of a problem, but destroying is still impossible.

[Darth Hoth]

I thought that the mass/energy content of the universe would remain constant, regardless of expansion? It was my understanding that no new energy is ever created, but only converted into different forms?

[marsh8472]

BORG QUEEN (OC): What's wrong Locutus? Isn't this familiar?
BORG QUEEN: Organic minds are such fragile things. How could you forget me so quickly? We were very close, you and I. You can still hear our song.
PICARD: Yes, ...I remember you. You were there all the time. But that ship and all the Borg on it were destroyed.
BORG QUEEN: You think in such three-dimensional terms. How small you've become.

Let's see, picard says that the queen was on the borg cube the whole time and yet some how she got off. Yet she insults him by referring to his thinking as 3 dimensional implying that he needs to think of a dimension higher than the 3rd. hmm what could that mean...

I'm not the first one to think this http://canonfodder.ex-astris-scientia.org/?History_%26_Cartography:How_the_Borg_Queen_Survived

I'm sure you all know it's time travel too, you just don't want to admit it

A universe by definition encompasses everything. It is, therefore, by definition a closed system.

not according to the multiverse theory.

I look at that page and see descriptions of hallucinations, hoaxes, time dilation and non-canon comics. Hardly sterling evidence for time travel that violates conservation of energy. Not to mention, Wookieepedia is not a canonical source. If you are going to argue these points, kindly use the original sources for your evidence.

The Secret of Tet-Ami comic book has a case of traveling 4 days in the past
Tilotny Throws a Shape marvel comic has a case of 8000 years in the past

both are c-canon

Wrong. You do not get to blithely ignore conservation of energy because you say so. On this board we base our assumptions on science, not technobabble. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if you want to throw out the most fundamental laws of physics, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate what evidence makes this necessary. Which I doubt is within your ability.

Did you even read the article I linked you to? Not only does Wong's model explain the issue of conservation, it also addresses the problem of apparent causality violations.

The extraordinary evidence in this case is that they actually go backward and forward in time. You kinda sound like a vulcan and their vulcan science directory on the enterprise series. Scientists are encouraged to try to disprove theories, that's how they know their theories are right or not. This does not change even with the most well supported theories of science.

And yet in the 24th century we hear nothing about it. (time travel)

sling shot around the sun, orb of time, with assistance from people in the future, a quantum singularity from a romulan warp core with an injection of radioisotopes, guardian of forever, Q, Kes, a time stream, Devidians, chronokinetic surge from a rift in space interacting with the warp core, a wormhole,...

[marsh8472]

I thought that the mass/energy content of the universe would remain constant, regardless of expansion? It was my understanding that no new energy is ever created, but only converted into different forms?

we see these laws demonstrated in our little corner but there's no proof the laws hold up in the entire universe. You use inductive reasoning to determine the truth for the whole universe even though we've never been to the whole universe to verify it.

[Teleros]

I'm sure you all know it's time travel too, you just don't want to admit it

No, I just don't think it's that certain. It might still be time travel (as opposed to say, some sort of personal transwarp conduit or w/e), but that's no biggie from where I'm arguing from.

sling shot around the sun, orb of time, with assistance from people in the future, a quantum singularity from a romulan warp core with an injection of radioisotopes, guardian of forever, Q, Kes, a time stream, Devidians, chronokinetic surge from a rift in space interacting with the warp core, a wormhole,...

1. Those are generally by other civilisations, ones which might be expected to have a greater regard for the timeline than the Borg.
2. It is still a rare thing.
3. It is woefully underused as a means of, well, doing a lot of things TBH.
4. We only see the Borg doing it once, maybe twice.

we see these laws demonstrated in our little corner but there's no proof the laws hold up in the entire universe. You use inductive reasoning to determine the truth for the whole universe even though we've never been to the whole universe to verify it.

Technically true but rather pointless unless we want to talk about philosophy rather than science. As far as we know, conservation of energy etc holds everywhere. To claim otherwise will require extraordinary proof thereof, because of the weight of evidence in favour of the conservation of energy & similar laws.

[Serafina]

I thought that the mass/energy content of the universe would remain constant, regardless of expansion? It was my understanding that no new energy is ever created, but only converted into different forms?

we see these laws demonstrated in our little corner but there's no proof the laws hold up in the entire universe. You use inductive reasoning to determine the truth for the whole universe even though we've never been to the whole universe to verify it.

This has, to date, be the stupidest sentence you ever uttered.
Pretty much every logical and scientific prinicple says that it is the most reasonable thing to assume that the laws we observe are constant until proven otherwise. Since COE is so fundamental, saying "it does not have to apply everywhere!!!1" shoves you right into willy-nilly pretend land - not that you are not allready there, hatfucker.

You truly are the classical trek-educated wanktard without even a scrap of understanding about logic, science or even common sense. That's why i love to laugh at nerd-parodies, i always know that there are such people and even if they make "nerd-behaviour" look bad, the irony of their ravings is just too delicious to deny.

[SapphireFox]

Quote:
BORG QUEEN (OC): What's wrong Locutus? Isn't this familiar?
BORG QUEEN: Organic minds are such fragile things. How could you forget me so quickly? We were very close, you and I. You can still hear our song.
PICARD: Yes, ...I remember you. You were there all the time. But that ship and all the Borg on it were destroyed.
BORG QUEEN: You think in such three-dimensional terms. How small you've become.


Let's see, picard says that the queen was on the borg cube the whole time and yet some how she got off. Yet she insults him by referring to his thinking as 3 dimensional implying that he needs to think of a dimension higher than the 3rd. hmm what could that mean...

I'm not the first one to think this http://canonfodder.ex-astris-scientia.o ... n_Survived

I'm sure you all know it's time travel too, you just don't want to admit it

What kind of bullshit are you trying to feed us, some wankers pet theroy about a second borg ship and I don't know if you loooked but there is NO portal for a borg sphere on the cube in question. I also explaned to you that there is more than 4 dimentions so any attempt to say that it must be the 4th dimention alone is bullshit. Its over blowing off the cuff insults/comments that we ended up with things like the "No Laser Falacy". Cowardly wanking at its finest

[Darth Hoth]

not according to the multiverse theory.

An alternate reality is not the same thing as a universe. A (or, more accurately, the) universe is defined as the sum total of existence that we can perceive. If we can perceive alternate realities, they are part of our universe; the fact that they are often colloquially referred to as "parallel universes" does not make that terminology correct.

The Secret of Tet-Ami comic book has a case of traveling 4 days in the past
Tilotny Throws a Shape marvel comic has a case of 8000 years in the past

both are c-canon

The former comic is a Tales book, which are defined as Infinities (=non-canon). The latter is s-canon at best.

Furthermore, naming sources proves nothing. What demonstrates that these instances are not hallucinations or bullshit like the others (given that one includes Leia talking with Q-like aliens with a bag of tricks)?

Furthermore, please present your evidence for perusal. Show the evidence directly from the source material, as opposed to Wookieepedia fanon. Otherwise you are relying on hearsay, which is not admissible evidence in a debate.

The extraordinary evidence in this case is that they actually go backward and forward in time. You kinda sound like a vulcan and their vulcan science directory on the enterprise series. Scientists are encouraged to try to disprove theories, that's how they know their theories are right or not. This does not change even with the most well supported theories of science.

Darth Wong's theory explains the phenomena with less abuse of physics than yours. If you are familiar with Occam's Razor, you should be able to figure out what this indicates, as regards to which one of them is preferable to use.

[marsh8472]

1. Those are generally by other civilisations, ones which might be expected to have a greater regard for the timeline than the Borg.
2. It is still a rare thing.
3. It is woefully underused as a means of, well, doing a lot of things TBH.
4. We only see the Borg doing it once, maybe twice.

He said time travel in the 24th century is a rare thing and I was able to name all that off the top of my head. The further ahead in time you go the more common time travel is.

Furthermore, please present your evidence for perusal. Show the evidence directly from the source material, as opposed to Wookieepedia fanon. Otherwise you are relying on hearsay, which is not admissible evidence in a debate.

i'll only go dig up the book and show it to you if you agree to concede the point, otherwise I'm not wasting my time on that.

This has, to date, be the stupidest sentence you ever uttered.
Pretty much every logical and scientific prinicple says that it is the most reasonable thing to assume that the laws we observe are constant until proven otherwise. Since COE is so fundamental, saying "it does not have to apply everywhere!!!1" shoves you right into willy-nilly pretend land - not that you are not allready there, hatfucker.

like it or not, it's a proven fact that nothing in science is a proven fact. Theories get disproven all the time. Every scientific hypothesis made must be falsifiable by definition. If there is lots of supporting evidence for the hypothesis by it not being falsified after rigerous testing then it's called a theory and if it has even more evidence to support it then they call it a law. But it will always be provisionally true, not absolutely true. All you need is one contradicting observation and the theory can go out the window.

Besides, in star trek and star wars time travel happens. You cannot debate that it doesn't and expect to get anywhere here since we see that it does happen.

[Teleros]

i'll only go dig up the book and show it to you if you agree to concede the point, otherwise I'm not wasting my time on that.

I think you need to provide evidence before you get the concession .

like it or not, it's a proven fact that nothing in science is a proven fact

On a more philosophical level, yes you're right. On a practical level, including these versus debates, it's always best to ignore this and assume that basic physics are the same unless very clear evidence shows otherwise. To go back to my post, the Skylark of Space openly and notoriously uses a Newtonian universe, pretty much ignoring Einstein's contributions to science. SW and ST clearly don't take such a drastic view of things, otherwise both would look and behave enormously differently.

[Darth Hoth]

i'll only go dig up the book and show it to you if you agree to concede the point, otherwise I'm not wasting my time on that.

I cannot very well agree to concede a point before you have presented your arguments and evidence, now, can I?

However, refusal to provide evidence for your claims is considered a de facto concession around here.

like it or not, it's a proven fact that nothing in science is a proven fact. Theories get disproven all the time. Every scientific hypothesis made must be falsifiable by definition. If there is lots of supporting evidence for the hypothesis by it not being falsified after rigerous testing then it's called a theory and if it has even more evidence to support it then they call it a law. But it will always be provisionally true, not absolutely true. All you need is one contradicting observation and the theory can go out the window.

That, however, completely fails to address Serafina's point. Have a look at Occam's Razor and the logical principle of parsimony.

Besides, in star trek and star wars time travel happens. You cannot debate that it doesn't and expect to get anywhere here since we see that it does happen.

We can debate mechanisms for explaining the onscreen visuals. You have, to date, failed utterly to make the case why your explanation is in any way superior to Wong's.

[Serafina]

This has, to date, be the stupidest sentence you ever uttered.
Pretty much every logical and scientific prinicple says that it is the most reasonable thing to assume that the laws we observe are constant until proven otherwise. Since COE is so fundamental, saying "it does not have to apply everywhere!!!1" shoves you right into willy-nilly pretend land - not that you are not allready there, hatfucker.

like it or not, it's a proven fact that nothing in science is a proven fact. Theories get disproven all the time. Every scientific hypothesis made must be falsifiable by definition. If there is lots of supporting evidence for the hypothesis by it not being falsified after rigerous testing then it's called a theory and if it has even more evidence to support it then they call it a law. But it will always be provisionally true, not absolutely true. All you need is one contradicting observation and the theory can go out the window.

Besides, in star trek and star wars time travel happens. You cannot debate that it doesn't and expect to get anywhere here since we see that it does happen.

Theories do NOT get disproven all the time. In fact, i challenge you to name at least three major theories that has been disproven within the last 150 years.
Theories are expanded - but once it reaches the theory stage, it is normally so solid that every new explanation can only add to it, not destoy (disprove) it.
As an example, Einstein did not disprove Newton. Newtonian Mechanics are still accurate on non-relativistic issues and are still widely used. Therefore, they have NOT been disproven.
Likewise, Punctuated Equilibrium did not disprove regular evolution, but merely added a new mechanism to it.

Furthermore, if COE could be violated at ONE point in the universe, that energy would violate COE in OTHER parts of the universe, too. Therefore, it is, by definition impossible to have COE-violation in any part of our universe, unless it is also possible here - which it is not.

Grow a brain, kiddie - and then get an education instead of fantazing about fucking your bullies parents in star-trek-cosplay.

[Darth Hoth]

On a more philosophical level, yes you're right. On a practical level, including these versus debates, it's always best to ignore this and assume that basic physics are the same unless very clear evidence shows otherwise. To go back to my post, the Skylark of Space openly and notoriously uses a Newtonian universe, pretty much ignoring Einstein's contributions to science. SW and ST clearly don't take such a drastic view of things, otherwise both would look and behave enormously differently.

I am fairly certain that Skylark does not use straight Newtonian physics for its universe. For starters, it assumes mass-energy equivalence, and the Skylark's acceleration is orders of magnitude over what its power generation should allow for, even with perfect efficiency. Although it does ignore relativity as it applies to the space travel, of course.