How would time travel affect a war between SW and ST?

[TheHammer]

As to your notion about nihlism, well quite frankly I don't get it. Even if I had an infinite number of clones, that doesn't mean I'd value my own life any less.

It has nothing to do with clones but with loosing free will. Just like you said moments ago:

Thus any attempt you make to go back and change history will fail. In some instances, you may actually cause other historical events to happen, but for whatever reason you will fail in your primary mission. Thus ensuring your future self will attempt to time travel, and fail yet again. I guess that's why I find time travel (to the past at least) to be less likely than FTL.

What this means is that the world you live in is already shaped by the action you have not yet taken. So in order for the world you live in to exist it must be your absolutely undeniable destiny to take said action. Therefore you have no free will in the mater. Worse yet, your entire life, every choice you made that has lead you to being the person you are were equally predestined to ensure you would become the person you are and commit that act of time travel ensuring the world you live in will exist ensuring you will be born to take that action. Nothing you do matters since things will always force you to act in the exact way you need to for the time line to exist.

I dont' want this to delve into a "meaning of life" conversation, but I don't see how that is any worse than believing time travel to the past is possible to begin with. If you went back in time and told your great grandfather everything that was to come, would he then feel like he had no choice in the matter and thus kill himself? Of course that would create one of the afore mentioned paradoxes.

Besides, there are many people who believe in fate, destiny, God's will or what have you. So the idea that they are locked on a certain course wouldn't drive them to madness or misery.

[TheHammer]

So people in Star Trek know how to travel through time, but haven't figured out how it works? Uh-huh, this is clearly distinct from them being stupid, I'm sure.

Ignorance does not equal stupidity. Human beings learned how to create a utilize fire long before they truly understood all of the mechanics behind it. I could use more examples, but I trust my point is taken.

The existence of parallel timelines does not mean that there are an infinite number of such timelines! Indeed, if they arise from might-have-beens, they are thankfully finite due to the limited number of permutations of sapient interactions.

Wrong, the number of timelines is infinite, because with each variation you spawn more possible variations - on and on without end.

What we have are three observations: 1) time travel is possible. 2) Time travel is meaningful- it can be used to create and solve problems, and alter the past and the future. 3) Parallel universes exist and can be traversed by repeatable methods. So, in order for these three things to work together, there has to be some means of altering the past that does not rely on alternate timelines, or else some reason to invalidate any of the three. Do you have some reason that doesn't rely on projecting your own prejudices into analysis? Do you?

You continue to hand wave away the concept of a paradox which is the biggest evidence that you can not, and do not alter your own history. That concept invalidates your first observation.

As to your second observation, will of course "travel" is meaningful. The "travelers" have a very real impact on the universe that they enter in to. But it is not their originating universe. Again, and I can not stress this enough, if they DID manage to change their own universe's history they'd create a paradox where they never would have gone back to begin with.

"Old spock" and his fancy starship in the Star Trek reboot certainly had a big impact on the universe through his dimensional travel. But he also still has a life time of memories where Vulcan was still around, and where he and Kirk never had the rough beginning as friends where he marooned him. If history had truly changed, why wouldn't his memories have changed with it?

Let me provide you with an example. You made choices today. But with infinite parallel universes that can be interacted with, you didn't, and can't. Every possible choice is made, and thus everything is rendered meaningless. There's no point in making decisions, because all the possible outcomes will occur anyway. Nothing can be prevented, or brought about, or delayed or accelerated, because those require action. Instead, things just happen. Sapients are reduced to passive marionettes whose strings pull themselves.

ITs not meaningless to me. Nor is it meaningless to the universe i inhabit. I'd bet that the denziens of the trek universe feel the same way.

[Bakustra]

So people in Star Trek know how to travel through time, but haven't figured out how it works? Uh-huh, this is clearly distinct from them being stupid, I'm sure.

Ignorance does not equal stupidity. Human beings learned how to create a utilize fire long before they truly understood all of the mechanics behind it. I could use more examples, but I trust my point is taken.

So the 29th century Federation, the Borg, Gary Seven's people... none of them understand time travel at all? Uh-huh. You're still calling everybody in Star Trek stupid. Just admit that you're either ideologically unwilling to allow for time travel in fiction that you don't already agree with or you're deliberately trying to demean Trek. Just come out of the fuckhead closet, already.

The existence of parallel timelines does not mean that there are an infinite number of such timelines! Indeed, if they arise from might-have-beens, they are thankfully finite due to the limited number of permutations of sapient interactions.

Wrong, the number of timelines is infinite, because with each variation you spawn more possible variations - on and on without end.

Prove it. Many-worlds does not have infinite worlds generated, and that is where multiplicity of timelines comes from.

What we have are three observations: 1) time travel is possible. 2) Time travel is meaningful- it can be used to create and solve problems, and alter the past and the future. 3) Parallel universes exist and can be traversed by repeatable methods. So, in order for these three things to work together, there has to be some means of altering the past that does not rely on alternate timelines, or else some reason to invalidate any of the three. Do you have some reason that doesn't rely on projecting your own prejudices into analysis? Do you?

You continue to hand wave away the concept of a paradox which is the biggest evidence that you can not, and do not alter your own history. That concept invalidates your first observation.

As to your second observation, will of course "travel" is meaningful. The "travelers" have a very real impact on the universe that they enter in to. But it is not their originating universe. Again, and I can not stress this enough, if they DID manage to change their own universe's history they'd create a paradox where they never would have gone back to begin with.

According to the method you're proposing, they don't affect or have impact on anything, because it is impossible to affect anything.

"Old spock" and his fancy starship in the Star Trek reboot certainly had a big impact on the universe through his dimensional travel. But he also still has a life time of memories where Vulcan was still around, and where he and Kirk never had the rough beginning as friends where he marooned him. If history had truly changed, why wouldn't his memories have changed with it?

Because time travel doesn't work like that in Star Trek. We see that in other situations, but you twist facts to fit theories. Hardly the methodology of a scientific analysis.

Let me provide you with an example. You made choices today. But with infinite parallel universes that can be interacted with, you didn't, and can't. Every possible choice is made, and thus everything is rendered meaningless. There's no point in making decisions, because all the possible outcomes will occur anyway. Nothing can be prevented, or brought about, or delayed or accelerated, because those require action. Instead, things just happen. Sapients are reduced to passive marionettes whose strings pull themselves.

ITs not meaningless to me. Nor is it meaningless to the universe i inhabit. I'd bet that the denziens of the trek universe feel the same way.

You can't interact with parallel universes. You can't be confronted with the fact that you don't make decisions at all- that the term "decision" is absolutely meaningless, because things happen and no action is ever taken. You can't ever realize that you are incapable of action, that you are a prisoner of the universe, unable to affect or do anything because things are only done to you. You're simply unwilling to face up to the philosophical consequences of your mode of thinking.

[TheHammer]

So the 29th century Federation, the Borg, Gary Seven's people... none of them understand time travel at all? Uh-huh. You're still calling everybody in Star Trek stupid. Just admit that you're either ideologically unwilling to allow for time travel in fiction that you don't already agree with or you're deliberately trying to demean Trek. Just come out of the fuckhead closet, already.

Wow you are fucking dense... Maybe they simply do not care that the universe they are going to isn't the exact same as the one they left. Their motivations are irrelevent.

Wrong, the number of timelines is infinite, because with each variation you spawn more possible variations - on and on without end.

Prove it. Many-worlds does not have infinite worlds generated, and that is where multiplicity of timelines comes from.

Its common fucking sense. The theme hammered home in the episode "parallels" - Anything that can occur does occur. From any single event you have an exponentially increasing number of branching choices. Think of it sort of like a family tree - branching out.

You continue to hand wave away the concept of a paradox which is the biggest evidence that you can not, and do not alter your own history. That concept invalidates your first observation.

As to your second observation, will of course "travel" is meaningful. The "travelers" have a very real impact on the universe that they enter in to. But it is not their originating universe. Again, and I can not stress this enough, if they DID manage to change their own universe's history they'd create a paradox where they never would have gone back to begin with.

According to the method you're proposing, they don't affect or have impact on anything, because it is impossible to affect anything.

I believe I've said, several times, that you DO HAVE AN IMPACT. But your impact is on the alternate timeline to which you travel. Your originating time line is not affected by your actions. I don't understand what is so hard to get about that?

"Old spock" and his fancy starship in the Star Trek reboot certainly had a big impact on the universe through his dimensional travel. But he also still has a life time of memories where Vulcan was still around, and where he and Kirk never had the rough beginning as friends where he marooned him. If history had truly changed, why wouldn't his memories have changed with it?

Because time travel doesn't work like that in Star Trek. We see that in other situations, but you twist facts to fit theories. Hardly the methodology of a scientific analysis.

What facts have I twisted?

I'll also point out that you STILL have not addressed the paradox that your single timeline time travel theory creates.

You can't interact with parallel universes. You can't be confronted with the fact that you don't make decisions at all- that the term "decision" is absolutely meaningless, because things happen and no action is ever taken. You can't ever realize that you are incapable of action, that you are a prisoner of the universe, unable to affect or do anything because things are only done to you. You're simply unwilling to face up to the philosophical consequences of your mode of thinking.

I do make decisions, and live or die with the consequences. So would the other theoretical "mes" in the other univserses. Quite frankly though, it is irrelevent to the discussion at hand. Parallel universes are a DOCUMENTED FACT in the Trek Universe.

[Crazedwraith]

In the many universe theory of 'time travel', how can they have a Temporal Cold War? How can they have the 29th Century Time Cops? Such organisations would have absolutely no point if all Time travel did was spawn more universes.

As for 'they remember the old timeline' argument, so what? Why is 'the vessel has randomly shifted to new reality' any more plausible that 'they have been insulated from changes to timeline' ?

And for the travellers themselves, maybe no cares they're not in their own reality anymore (though Worf seemed to think it was a pretty big deal in Parallels) or maybe its just that the act of time travelling itself actually provides some insulation from changes to the timeline. That you have to be at your own regular point of the timeline to be affected by changes.

[Bakustra]

So the 29th century Federation, the Borg, Gary Seven's people... none of them understand time travel at all? Uh-huh. You're still calling everybody in Star Trek stupid. Just admit that you're either ideologically unwilling to allow for time travel in fiction that you don't already agree with or you're deliberately trying to demean Trek. Just come out of the fuckhead closet, already.

Wow you are fucking dense... Maybe they simply do not care that the universe they are going to isn't the exact same as the one they left. Their motivations are irrelevent.

All of those three powers act as though they can change the past- the entire point of First Contact and Assignment: Earth is that the Borg and Gary Seven go back into the past to alter the course of events. Gary Seven indicates that he does this on a regular basis, and he is successful in doing so. The point of First Contact is that Picard and the Enterprise go back to stop the Borg after observing the consequences of Borg success. These, together with the ability to visit parallel universes, speak either that every individual in Star Trek is too stupid to understand how time travel works, or that you can change the past.

Wrong, the number of timelines is infinite, because with each variation you spawn more possible variations - on and on without end.

Prove it. Many-worlds does not have infinite worlds generated, and that is where multiplicity of timelines comes from.

Its common fucking sense. The theme hammered home in the episode "parallels" - Anything that can occur does occur. From any single event you have an exponentially increasing number of branching choices. Think of it sort of like a family tree - branching out.[/quote]

Exponential increases do not actually result in infinity unless they are allowed to run for infinite time- and any increase will go to infinity at infinite time. Many-worlds also operates on the principle that the probabilistic nature of quantum physics means that every possible outcome of a quantum event occurs in parallel worlds. But that results in a finite, though very large, set of possible worlds. Infinite timelines should not be the default assumption, and the fact that you do so says that you are not familiar with first-year calculus.

You continue to hand wave away the concept of a paradox which is the biggest evidence that you can not, and do not alter your own history. That concept invalidates your first observation.

As to your second observation, will of course "travel" is meaningful. The "travelers" have a very real impact on the universe that they enter in to. But it is not their originating universe. Again, and I can not stress this enough, if they DID manage to change their own universe's history they'd create a paradox where they never would have gone back to begin with.

According to the method you're proposing, they don't affect or have impact on anything, because it is impossible to affect anything.

I believe I've said, several times, that you DO HAVE AN IMPACT. But your impact is on the alternate timeline to which you travel. Your originating time line is not affected by your actions. I don't understand what is so hard to get about that?

That doesn't work, because you're suggesting infinite timelines, but it's impossible for anything to affect anything or any action to be taken in such a universe. Change is impossible in it.

"Old spock" and his fancy starship in the Star Trek reboot certainly had a big impact on the universe through his dimensional travel. But he also still has a life time of memories where Vulcan was still around, and where he and Kirk never had the rough beginning as friends where he marooned him. If history had truly changed, why wouldn't his memories have changed with it?

Because time travel doesn't work like that in Star Trek. We see that in other situations, but you twist facts to fit theories. Hardly the methodology of a scientific analysis.

What facts have I twisted?

I'll also point out that you STILL have not addressed the paradox that your single timeline time travel theory creates.

You've twisted the actions of powers with time travel into the assumption that they're idiots because they act as though they can change the past- but rather than accept that this is the case, you take your pre-existing theory that it's impossible to change the past and twist the direct evidence against it to fit your pre-existing theory. See, my theory relies on the fact that a number of plots rely on the ability to affect the past, so attacking it with the paradox argument runs into the direct evidence that time-travel doesn't work that way.

You can't interact with parallel universes. You can't be confronted with the fact that you don't make decisions at all- that the term "decision" is absolutely meaningless, because things happen and no action is ever taken. You can't ever realize that you are incapable of action, that you are a prisoner of the universe, unable to affect or do anything because things are only done to you. You're simply unwilling to face up to the philosophical consequences of your mode of thinking.

I do make decisions, and live or die with the consequences. So would the other theoretical "mes" in the other univserses. Quite frankly though, it is irrelevent to the discussion at hand. Parallel universes are a DOCUMENTED FACT in the Trek Universe.

In an infinite set of parallel universes which can interact with one another, you do not make decisions because everything happens regardless. There are no choices in such a universe, because every outcome happens and can be observed, though the observer cannot make that decision. Parallel universes are documented, but not the monstrosity that is the infinite set of parallel universes.

In the many universe theory of 'time travel', how can they have a Temporal Cold War? How can they have the 29th Century Time Cops? Such organisations would have absolutely no point if all Time travel did was spawn more universes.

As for 'they remember the old timeline' argument, so what? Why is 'the vessel has randomly shifted to new reality' any more plausible that 'they have been insulated from changes to timeline' ?

And for the travellers themselves, maybe no cares they're not in their own reality anymore (though Worf seemed to think it was a pretty big deal in Parallels) or maybe its just that the act of time travelling itself actually provides some insulation from changes to the timeline. That you have to be at your own regular point of the timeline to be affected by changes.

The answer that people are thinking but not saying is that everybody in Star Trek is an idiot and so does not understand how time travel works. Duh, that's obviously the most reasonable answer.

[TheHammer]

In the many universe theory of 'time travel', how can they have a Temporal Cold War? How can they have the 29th Century Time Cops? Such organisations would have absolutely no point if all Time travel did was spawn more universes.

Maybe those organizations don't exist for the reasons you think they do. In fact, I'm not sure they do anything anyway... After all, they clearly don't jump in and stop every supposed incident of "time travel". And there were some pretty big ones, such as the final episode of Voyager, the Borg invasion in "first contact", the destruction of Vulcan in the Trek Reboot. Where the hell are these time cop organizations then?

As for 'they remember the old timeline' argument, so what? Why is 'the vessel has randomly shifted to new reality' any more plausible that 'they have been insulated from changes to timeline' ?

Two things, firstly we KNOW parallel realities exist. And secondly, because the idea of being "insulated from changes to the timeline" is utter non-sense, even in a work of science fiction. It would stink of simple lazy writing, but the existence of parallel universes actually makes the idea work.

And for the travellers themselves, maybe no cares they're not in their own reality anymore (though Worf seemed to think it was a pretty big deal in Parallels) or maybe its just that the act of time travelling itself actually provides some insulation from changes to the timeline. That you have to be at your own regular point of the timeline to be affected by changes.

That's because the later timelines he travelled into were vastly different from what he knew. His son didn't exist, historical events radically different. At first, he didn't even notice the difference - only small things, such as a painting being on a different wall etc. He would have lived with that. I suspect its the same for most "time travellers".

[Bakustra]

Utter nonsense? You're a fucking idiot. See, the second half of science fiction refers to fiction- that which is not necessarily true. Now, we may go with the idea that science fiction makes the improbable possible, except that that hasn't been the rule since Jules Verne, and it sure as hell doesn't apply to the rest of Star Trek.

[TheHammer]

All of those three powers act as though they can change the past- the entire point of First Contact and Assignment: Earth is that the Borg and Gary Seven go back into the past to alter the course of events. Gary Seven indicates that he does this on a regular basis, and he is successful in doing so. The point of First Contact is that Picard and the Enterprise go back to stop the Borg after observing the consequences of Borg success. These, together with the ability to visit parallel universes, speak either that every individual in Star Trek is too stupid to understand how time travel works, or that you can change the past.

Already addressed many times over. The motivations of these inviduals is irrelevent. It does not contradict the theory of shifting into near equivalent parallel universes. Again, if Gary Seven's people were able to alter their own history, how would they know to alter it in the first place? Back to your old pal that you never talk about - The Paradox.

Its common fucking sense. The theme hammered home in the episode "parallels" - Anything that can occur does occur. From any single event you have an exponentially increasing number of branching choices. Think of it sort of like a family tree - branching out.

Exponential increases do not actually result in infinity unless they are allowed to run for infinite time- and any increase will go to infinity at infinite time. Many-worlds also operates on the principle that the probabilistic nature of quantum physics means that every possible outcome of a quantum event occurs in parallel worlds. But that results in a finite, though very large, set of possible worlds. Infinite timelines should not be the default assumption, and the fact that you do so says that you are not familiar with first-year calculus.

I was postulating infinite time. Regardless, I've seen the many worlds theory described using both the terms "infinite" and "near infinite" in terms of the number of universes. But even if you wish to split hairs and say a "very large" (near-infinite) number of universes it doesn't change the core of my argument.

That doesn't work, because you're suggesting infinite timelines, but it's impossible for anything to affect anything or any action to be taken in such a universe. Change is impossible in it.

You affect the universe in which you inhabit. That may not mean a damn thing to other universes, but that doesn't mean your action is meaningless.

You've twisted the actions of powers with time travel into the assumption that they're idiots because they act as though they can change the past- but rather than accept that this is the case, you take your pre-existing theory that it's impossible to change the past and twist the direct evidence against it to fit your pre-existing theory. See, my theory relies on the fact that a number of plots rely on the ability to affect the past, so attacking it with the paradox argument runs into the direct evidence that time-travel doesn't work that way.

You are pulling ideas out of your ass. Parallels are a fact in the trek verse and neatly address the idea of a paradox. Something you repeatedly fail to do.

In an infinite set of parallel universes which can interact with one another, you do not make decisions because everything happens regardless. There are no choices in such a universe, because every outcome happens and can be observed, though the observer cannot make that decision. Parallel universes are documented, but not the monstrosity that is the infinite set of parallel universes.

You affect the universe in which you inhabit. How many times do I have to say this? Sure there may be a universe where "you" are dead, or the earth is destroyed. Doesn't mean the "you" that lives in this universe finds your own life meaningless.

The answer that people are thinking but not saying is that everybody in Star Trek is an idiot and so does not understand how time travel works. Duh, that's obviously the most reasonable answer.

No, clearly "the answer" is to hand waive away the entire idea of a Paradox without even bothering to try and explain it.

[TheHammer]

Utter nonsense? You're a fucking idiot. See, the second half of science fiction refers to fiction- that which is not necessarily true. Now, we may go with the idea that science fiction makes the improbable possible, except that that hasn't been the rule since Jules Verne, and it sure as hell doesn't apply to the rest of Star Trek.

Magical "protection from changes in the timeline" is shitty writing that defies my suspension of disbelief. And your failure to explain the paradox proves what a pathetic joke your argument is. I don't blame you for not addressing it, since it pretty much destroys your theory.

[Crazedwraith]

And your magical 'everyone shifts universes at random' theory makes every time travel story pointless and turns the cast into a bunch of sliders who don't even know it. That would be the shitty writing, if it were true.

[Bakustra]

Utter nonsense? You're a fucking idiot. See, the second half of science fiction refers to fiction- that which is not necessarily true. Now, we may go with the idea that science fiction makes the improbable possible, except that that hasn't been the rule since Jules Verne, and it sure as hell doesn't apply to the rest of Star Trek.

Magical "protection from changes in the timeline" is shitty writing that defies my suspension of disbelief. And your failure to explain the paradox proves what a pathetic joke your argument is. I don't blame you for not addressing it, since it pretty much destroys your theory.

Oh no!!! Not your.... suspension of disbelief!!!

Sorry dude, but you're pathetic. The problem isn't with the writing, it's with your inability to enjoy things that contradict your personal views, and that said personal views are on time travel, of all things. The fact that you think that pop-science writeups and science journalism about the many-worlds hypothesis overrides the actual implications of the theory, and that you don't understand the distinction between "infinite" and "very large", just cements you as a dunce.

You refuse to confront the reality of how an infinite set of universes would operate. Why hold a theory, why cling to it like a rat to driftwood, if you're not willing to embrace its consequences? What do you get out of your belief? What about it uplifts and supports you?

You want me to address the paradox. But that's not how these things work. We observe in the case of City on the Edge of Forever and First Contact that people close to a time-travel event are not altered by the effects of the time-travel. That would suggest that, since the parallel universe theory molests llamas and is incompatible with Star Trek as a whole, that the only permissible means of time travel prevent a paradox from occurring, by protecting the time-traveler. In other words, the evidence we see is that paradoxes are averted by time travel somehow. We don't need to know the exact method any more than we need to define the exact means by which hyperdrive, the Force, or warp drive work. But you certainly wouldn't demand any of those, because you've been hopefully conditioned (since Elbereth knows that you couldn't figure it out on your own) to realize how stupid that would be.

You also still don't give a good reason why everybody is an idiot in Star Trek.

And your magical 'everyone shifts universes at random' theory makes every time travel story pointless and turns the cast into a bunch of sliders who don't even know it. That would be the shitty writing, if it were true.

No, man, Star Nihilism is the best idea for a sci-fi show in the last three hours!!

[Darth Tedious]

See, my theory relies on the fact that a number of plots rely on the ability to affect the past, so attacking it with the paradox argument runs into the direct evidence that time-travel doesn't work that way.

At least you admit your entire argument rests on nothing more than writer's intent. In the context of this thread (How would time travel affect a war between SW and ST?) you should just point out that the Federation would win without even needing time travel, becuase they're the good guys. Because that's how writer's intent works. You wouldn't even need to say how they would do it, just like you're not even attempting to explain the lack of paradox- somehow!

See, the second half of science fiction refers to fiction- that which is not necessarily true.

And the first half refers to science- sci-fi explains why things which are not necessarily true could be possible, which is what seperates it from fantasy, where things can be handwaved as magic.

Examples include:

We don't need to know the exact method any more than we need to define the exact means by which hyperdrive, the Force, or warp drive work.

Hyperdrive works by generating a field around a ship, allowing it to enter another dimension (known as hyperspace), where the normal laws of physics don't apply and ships are able to easily travel at insane FTL speeds.
The Force works because of the ability to sense and interact with Midichlorians, which are concentrated in (but not neccesarily limited to) living things, and generate an energy field that, when manipulated, can give the user apparent abilities like telekinesis, telepathy, and many more.
Warp drive works by funneling highly energised plasma through injectors into a series of coils composed of verterium cortenide, which produces a subspace bubble around the ship, and allows the local space-time continuum to be distorted, moving the ship forward at FTL speeds.

These are highly simplified explanations, but should give you the idea that within science fiction (even sci-fi as allegedly fantasy-based as Star Wars) things are not merely handwaved as 'it just works that way'. Sci fi gives explanations. Even if they are in absolutely nonsense technobabble.

But you certainly wouldn't demand any of those, because you've been hopefully conditioned (since Elbereth knows that you couldn't figure it out on your own) to realize how stupid that would be.

We wouldn't have to demand explanations for those things, because the writers offered them to us. It's something sci-fi writers often like to do (see distinction between sci-fi and fantasy).

Nowhere in Star Trek has any explanation been given as to why time travellers would be protected from changes to the timeline. The only way to rectify the observed lack of Grandfather Paradox is alternate realities- which are a known and proven fact within Star Trek.
Every possible course of action is played out in an alternate reality. You can bitch all you want about the philosophical ramifications of it, but unless you can convince Brannon and Braga to decanonise 'Parallels' (and every other episode involving alternate timelines), it still stands as a fact within the Trekverse. One which no amount of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "writer's intent!" will make go away.

Just to clear something up, I'm not opposed to time travel. I am, however, opposed to 'magical bullshit' time travel. In Doctor Who, the Paradox Machine had to be built to allow an entire race to wipe out their ancestors. In Back to the Future, Marty McFly had to make sure he didn't erase himself from history by causing a paradox. Even Bill and Ted experienced recurring loops and 'predestined' events caused by their own time travel.
I don't see why Star Trek should be exempt from explanation when the writers love making up technobabble explanations for everything else they can say "quantum" at.

Many worlds isn't a theory within Trek, it's an observed and known fact. Your counter-theory is nothing more than arsepulling based on writer's intent.

Many worlds and magic time travel are both shitty writing in their own ways (noone ever said the writing in Star Trek was perfect). The difference is, one has actually been written by Star Trek writers.

[Darth Tedious]

You also still don't give a good reason why everybody is an idiot in Star Trek.

Since when do people need a reason to be stupid?

As I've already pointed out, the Federation often does things without understanding the consequences, which is why Picard was mortified when he learned that warp drives damage the fabric of space-time.

People in Star Trek are capable of being dumb, they don't need a reason to do so.

Please explain why they would understand the finer points of time travel, when they didn't even fully grasp the implications of warp technology?

[Stofsk]

It didn't take long for that 'warp drive damages space!' idea to get quietly buried in DS9 and Voyager. There have been so many times afterwards where the heroes say 'fuck it, set a course for wherever, maximum warp'. They either:

1. Don't care.
2. Solved the problem behind the scenes (and quite quickly too, considering when the problem was discovered).
3. The problem wasn't as huge as it was made out to be. Considering how large space is, how often warp drive has been used, and how many species have used it over the millennia, and the problem wasn't detected then or there by other people, leads me to think this option is probably the most likely. Out of universe: the episode was fucking stupid and ideological (i.e. 'lets have a story about the environment!') and was ignored by the writers later on in DS9 and Voyager.

I'm thinking a combination of 2 and 3 is in order.

Also everyone is harping on about how we're ignoring the 'paradox' of time travel to the past. Yet, get this guys - FTL travel violates both relativity and causality, but I don't see you guys complain about that. Everytime someone hits the switch and plunges the Enterprise into warp, they're creating a paradox. Same goes for the guys on a Star Destroyer. What about trek's transporters? Are they murder machines which duplicate people but destroy the copy, or are they just a super-cool method of getting from a to b? It turns out some of these things in sci-fi are conceits necessary to move the plot along.

[Crazedwraith]

Some other things about this parallel universe method travel. If it worked like that, no-one would ever develop time travel technology because from the point of view of the 'original universe' it doesn't work. So time travel would ever take place by accident.

So how did the Borg develop their time travel corridor magic? The first time they activate it, whatever they send in disappears to an alternate universe and they never see it again so they would conclude the tech doesn't work as expected and not use it again.

Also what happens to you if you go forward in time? Do you shift universes again? Remain in your new altered universe? What happen to your copies in that new universe? Did they have to go back in time as well? Wouldn't that lead to infinite numbers of new identical universes for each and every time travel incident?

[TheHammer]

Some other things about this parallel universe method travel. If it worked like that, no-one would ever develop time travel technology because from the point of view of the 'original universe' it doesn't work. So time travel would ever take place by accident.

In many of the universes it would appear to work, because another "you" from the other universe would make the same decision to "time travel". Other times, they would conclude that the time travel was a failure.

So how did the Borg develop their time travel corridor magic? The first time they activate it, whatever they send in disappears to an alternate universe and they never see it again so they would conclude the tech doesn't work as expected and not use it again.

Given that we never see them attempt it again, it is very possible that is exactly what happens. Another thing to consider is the borg queen herself. We see her "die" in "first contact" yet another identical version is found later. That is never really explained, but a plausible possibility is that queen we see in voyager is from an alternate time line herself.

Also what happens to you if you go forward in time? Do you shift universes again? Remain in your new altered universe? What happen to your copies in that new universe? Did they have to go back in time as well?

My guess is that you slide into another parallel universe when you go forward as well. Although theoretically, you could travel forward in time within the same universe without creating a paradox, given that the mechanics for "going forward" are similar to the ones for "going backward", then I'd suspect that you are dimension shifting into another parallel timeline.

If you are in a sufficiently similar timeline, the "you" from that universe - the one who took the history tests you now find to be different from what you remember - shifted themselves into another universe. However, sometimes you shift into a universe where it is radically different and you end up "running into yourself". Such is the case in some of the mirror universe episodes.

Wouldn't that lead to infinite numbers of new identical universes for each and every time travel incident?

Now you are starting to get it...

[TheHammer]

Utter nonsense? You're a fucking idiot. See, the second half of science fiction refers to fiction- that which is not necessarily true. Now, we may go with the idea that science fiction makes the improbable possible, except that that hasn't been the rule since Jules Verne, and it sure as hell doesn't apply to the rest of Star Trek.

Magical "protection from changes in the timeline" is shitty writing that defies my suspension of disbelief. And your failure to explain the paradox proves what a pathetic joke your argument is. I don't blame you for not addressing it, since it pretty much destroys your theory.

Oh no!!! Not your.... suspension of disbelief!!!

Sorry dude, but you're pathetic. The problem isn't with the writing, it's with your inability to enjoy things that contradict your personal views, and that said personal views are on time travel, of all things. The fact that you think that pop-science writeups and science journalism about the many-worlds hypothesis overrides the actual implications of the theory, and that you don't understand the distinction between "infinite" and "very large", just cements you as a dunce.

You refuse to confront the reality of how an infinite set of universes would operate. Why hold a theory, why cling to it like a rat to driftwood, if you're not willing to embrace its consequences? What do you get out of your belief? What about it uplifts and supports you?

You want me to address the paradox. But that's not how these things work. We observe in the case of City on the Edge of Forever and First Contact that people close to a time-travel event are not altered by the effects of the time-travel. That would suggest that, since the parallel universe theory molests llamas and is incompatible with Star Trek as a whole, that the only permissible means of time travel prevent a paradox from occurring, by protecting the time-traveler. In other words, the evidence we see is that paradoxes are averted by time travel somehow. We don't need to know the exact method any more than we need to define the exact means by which hyperdrive, the Force, or warp drive work. But you certainly wouldn't demand any of those, because you've been hopefully conditioned (since Elbereth knows that you couldn't figure it out on your own) to realize how stupid that would be.

I see, so my explanation using canon examples and logic should be disregarded because you say so. And your answer to how the paradoxes we see is that they should simply be disregarded through the "Magic of make believe". Yes I'm the one who is pathetic. Just admit you don't bother to try and explain how paradoxes don't occur because you have not explanation.

And your magical 'everyone shifts universes at random' theory makes every time travel story pointless and turns the cast into a bunch of sliders who don't even know it. That would be the shitty writing, if it were true.

The difference is we've observed parallel universes within the context of trek. Further, they quite neatly deal with the concept of a pradox that is not addressed by any other theory.

[Connor MacLeod]

I think the big question to ask with time travel is "How is time travel allowed to be used normally" in ST? We know it exists in various forms, that there is a "future galaxy" where it is prevalent but heavily regulated/monitored. There are organizations in the "current" times (at least as of DS9 and such) concerned with monitoring and policing time travel stuff.

Given the sheer potential for abuse (and I suspect it would only take it happening once to possibly fuck things over MAJORLY) there's going to be some hefty restrictions on how time travel is used WITHIN trek. That stands to reason that they're not going to just let them use it willy nilly either because they go to war with another universe.

Besides we know so little about time travel (and the various modes) as a rule, that we can't really apply it to vs debating without stumbling into leaps of logic or no limits fallacies whether we intend to or not.

BTW the whole "does it affect the existing timeline or not" thing probably isn't going to apply to all examples (there's too many examples that alternately affect the same timeline or a different timeline to be sure. I don't know if the two kinds are mutually exclusive, but it would seem they aren't in trek.) so it is fruitless to argue that from specific examples.