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

[Stark]

Is there ever any point discussing how time travel affects a vs when one side has functional, interactive time travel and the other side doesn't? Are there any set of circumstances where this does not result in a victory for the side with interactive time travel?

[Batman]

That'd be the part where the time travel might result in the losing party winning in a different reality the winning party from the original reality couldn't possibly care less about? Have you actually read the thread?

[Stark]

Do you understand what is meant by 'functional, interactive time travel'? Ps, if you can't communicate with your original timeline, it is not 'interactive'. If information can flow back and forth (as in most of the examples in this thread), it is 'interactive'.

I think others have sufficiently discussed the ST parallel universe situation.

[Batman]

Do me a favour and tell me where in this thread it was shown that there was communications between the different timelines, which, incidentally, is a tacit admission that there are different timelines.

[Stark]

I'm not sure how that is at all relevant to my question, but the OP includes an example of information moving between timeframes, which it strikes me is enough to make any 'interactive time travel power vs no time travel power' discussion redundant. After all, if (as MFG suggests) you can use time travel in an interactive way, there is very little to discuss beyond the practicalities of the specific example (ie, how the Federation time travellers would grab Yoda when it would take them ages to reach or find him, etc).

People in this thread are having a discussion; simply crowing PARALLEL OMG doesn't really contribute anything.

[Batman]

Actually, if Trek time travel works on the branching/parallel timelines angle (which actually is the most sensible approach) then yes, we absolutely are, as that would mean time travel has absolutely no effect on the original scenario. The time travelers disappear into another reality/timeline/universe, take your pick, the original AQ still gets their ass handed to them.

[Stark]

Why do you bother posting when you ignore what people are saying or asking? Why do you reply to a pretty simple question that emerges from a discussion with expressly irrelevant nitpicking? Nothing you have posted (in posts you apparently consider 'replies') address my question at all, and are simply cut and pastes from ancient discussions everyone already knows about.

To reiterate once more, if you can move information or objects between timeframes and your opponent can't, are there any circumstances where this is even worth discussing from a vs perspective? Please note that 'parallel lol' isn't even tangentially related to this question.

[Batman]

'Parallel lol' is at the heart of the question. Because if your time travel relies on moving to parallel dimensions, it's useless for anything other than personal survival. The universe you originally came from still loses.

[Bakustra]

Well, if we take this outside the context of Star Wars vs. Star Trek, then we could posit a situation where time travel was too expensive or unreliable to really be effective in ensuring victory, such that it becomes a toss-up. Of course, you'd probably have to invent such a universe from whole cloth for a versus, because I can't really think of any. This is assuming organized civilizations or individuals with sufficient information-gathering abilities using time travel; Bill and Ted or Marty McFly would have quite a bit of trouble dealing with the Empire (they live before the prequels came out) via time-travel, though they probably could/would win out in the end.

'Parallel lol' is at the heart of the question. Because if your time travel relies on moving to parallel dimensions, it's useless for anything other than personal survival. The universe you originally came from still loses.

I'm not sure how that is at all relevant to my question, but the OP includes an example of information moving between timeframes, which it strikes me is enough to make any 'interactive time travel power vs no time travel power' discussion redundant. After all, if (as MFG suggests) you can use time travel in an interactive way, there is very little to discuss beyond the practicalities of the specific example (ie, how the Federation time travellers would grab Yoda when it would take them ages to reach or find him, etc).

People in this thread are having a discussion; simply crowing PARALLEL OMG doesn't really contribute anything.

You're having some trouble reading what Stark is saying, so I'll just repost him in the hopes that it might sink in.

[Batman]

No I'm not. You are the ones that blithely assume that will have any effect on the original timeline. The very fact that timeline is there for you to want to change means you didn't get to change it.

[Stark]

'Parallel lol' is at the heart of the question. Because if your time travel relies on moving to parallel dimensions, it's useless for anything other than personal survival. The universe you originally came from still loses.

Do you honestly think you are telling anyone in this thread anything they don't already know? Is your contribution limited to 'repeat past consensus endlessly'? How many times do I need to say 'the commonly accepted parallel universe interpretation of ST time travel is not interactive time travel' before you catch on? Regardless, if the question is 'what impact will time travel have on xyz' and we say 'parallels lol', then the answer is 'nothing' and it is not worth discussing, as I already suggested.

Bakustra, I don't know anythign about post-TNG time travel, but it seems that the 29th century guys can choose to appear wherever in space they choose. Does anyone know if this is because they truck there first, or do they have time/space ships? The idea of grabbing some guy from the SW side would be impossible for the Spock Method to contrive given speeds and distances, but if the future guys have some kind of time scoop they'd be able to do it.

No I'm not. You are the ones that blithely assume that will have any effect on the original timeline. The very fact that timeline is there for you to want to change means you didn't get to change it.

Do you have any critical thinking skills at all? If someone said 'if the fridge is warm, will the fruit go off', would you say 'OMG THE FRIDGE IS COLD NOOB'?

[Bakustra]

No I'm not. You are the ones that blithely assume that will have any effect on the original timeline. The very fact that timeline is there for you to want to change means you didn't get to change it.

City on the Edge of Forever. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Tomorrow is Yesterday. Trials and Tribble-lations. First Contact. It is possible to change the past in Star Trek. You lose.

Bakustra, I don't know anythign about post-TNG time travel, but it seems that the 29th century guys can choose to appear wherever in space they choose. Does anyone know if this is because they truck there first, or do they have time/space ships? The idea of grabbing some guy from the SW side would be impossible for the Spock Method to contrive given speeds and distances, but if the future guys have some kind of time scoop they'd be able to do it.

There might be an answer in some book somewhere, but I doubt it. They probably have transwarp or quantum slipstream in the far-off future, so it may be irrelevant, as they'd be quick enough to move intergalactically like Star Wars. If we've got a wormhole, then the Spock method is a bit more practical.

[Batman]

'Parallel lol' is at the heart of the question. Because if your time travel relies on moving to parallel dimensions, it's useless for anything other than personal survival. The universe you originally came from still loses.

Do you honestly think you are telling anyone in this thread anything they don't already know? Is your contribution limited to 'repeat past consensus endlessly'? How many times do I need to say 'the commonly accepted parallel universe interpretation of ST time travel is not interactive time travel' before you catch on?

That'd be the part where you explain to me why that would actually matter.

Regardless, if the question is 'what impact will time travel have on xyz' and we say 'parallels lol', then the answer is 'nothing' and it is not worth discussing, as I already suggested.

Small problem-the very existence of this thread means the original poster at least thinks time travel would have an impact, and at that point I think the mechanics of time travel become not inconsiderably important.

No I'm not. You are the ones that blithely assume that will have any effect on the original timeline. The very fact that timeline is there for you to want to change means you didn't get to change it.

Do you have any critical thinking skills at all? If someone said 'if the fridge is warm, will the fruit go off', would you say 'OMG THE FRIDGE IS COLD NOOB'?

Obviously unlike you, I do.If somebody went back in time to change the past 50 years ago those changes would have happened 50 years ago. That's odd-they didn't.

[Batman]

No I'm not. You are the ones that blithely assume that will have any effect on the original timeline. The very fact that timeline is there for you to want to change means you didn't get to change it.

City on the Edge of Forever. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Tomorrow is Yesterday. Trials and Tribble-lations. First Contact. It is possible to change the past in Star Trek. You lose.

Um-no? There's exactly zero evidence that the timeline we see after those is the same one we saw before them?

[Stark]

That'd be the part where you explain to me why that would actually matter.

Are you asking why something not being interactive time travel is relevant to a question about interactive time travel?

Small problem-the very existence of this thread means the original poster at least thinks time travel would have an impact, and at that point I think the mechanics of time travel become not inconsiderably important.

So your solution is to constantly repost the same thing everyone on this board already knows, in direct response to a question explicitly about something else?

No I'm not. You are the ones that blithely assume that will have any effect on the original timeline. The very fact that timeline is there for you to want to change means you didn't get to change it.

Do you have any critical thinking skills at all? If someone said 'if the fridge is warm, will the fruit go off', would you say 'OMG THE FRIDGE IS COLD NOOB'?

Obviously unlike you, I do.If somebody went back in time to change the past 50 years ago those changes would have happened 50 years ago. That's odd-they didn't.

What the fuck? Seriously, what are you trying to say here? That time travel isn't realistic? That you don't believe in interactive time travel? That you refuse to accept any concept of time travel that isn't your own, even in a discussion about something else?

Seriously, Batman, take a step back. I asked 'if x = y, is it worth discussing', and you said 'x is not y' and then got cross that nobody cared.

[Bakustra]

No I'm not. You are the ones that blithely assume that will have any effect on the original timeline. The very fact that timeline is there for you to want to change means you didn't get to change it.

City on the Edge of Forever. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Tomorrow is Yesterday. Trials and Tribble-lations. First Contact. It is possible to change the past in Star Trek. You lose.

Um-no? There's exactly zero evidence that the timeline we see after those is the same one we saw before them?

Okay, so all those are meaningless? The entire point of all of those episodes is that it is possible to change the past meaningfully- else there would be no moral conflict in any of them, since it wouldn't matter that a fighter pilot saw the Enterprise or that the past had actually changed because Edith Keeler survived. So either the past changes within a timeline, or people are locked into timelines and so it's functionally identical to changing the past. But people can move horizontally between timelines, as Mirror, Mirror and Yesterday's Enterprise show. So people are not locked into timelines, but it is possible to meaningfully change the past. If you have a better way to resolve this dilemma- aw, who am I kidding? You'll repeat the status quo without thinking about it in any way. Sucks to be you, I guess.

[Stark]

It seems that he simply doesn't believe it's possible to change the past in principle; what he's doing in a thread about time travel I have no idea.

I wonder how the existence of the TEMPORAL POLICE impact those older episodes. I guess they already 'knew' that Kirk etc managed to fix it up, so they didn't care?

[Batman]

I'm getting cross at people blithely assuming x is y. Rational thought and a goodly portion of Trek canon say Trek time travel works on parallel universes/branching timelines, which in turn makes it useless in a vs.

[Batman]

It seems that he simply doesn't believe it's possible to change the past in principle; what he's doing in a thread about time travel I have no idea.

You finally got it. It isn't possible to change the past. If it were, and you succeeded at it, that past wouldn't be there to begin with

[Stark]

I'm getting cross at people blithely assuming x is y. Rational thought and a goodly portion of Trek canon say Trek time travel works on parallel universes/branching timelines, which in turn makes it useless in a vs.

Now that you have revealed you are simply religiously opposed to time travel - and thus trolling the thread - I have to point out that saying 'if x = y' is not an assumption that x = y, and your belief that it is (and that the solution is to repeat yourself endlessly) is wrong.

[Bakustra]

I'm getting cross at people blithely assuming x is y. Rational thought and a goodly portion of Trek canon say Trek time travel works on parallel universes/branching timelines, which in turn makes it useless in a vs.

Why don't you address my reasoning then, if "rational thought" (read: your personal beliefs on the real-life plausibility of time travel plus furious agreement with the status quo) determines that time travel in Star Trek works in such a way that changing the past is not meaningful.

It seems that he simply doesn't believe it's possible to change the past in principle; what he's doing in a thread about time travel I have no idea.

You finally got it. It isn't possible to change the past. If it were, and you succeeded at it, that past wouldn't be there to begin with

Hey, you ever play a little game called Chrono Trigger? I think you would looove it.

[Batman]

I'm getting cross at people blithely assuming x is y. Rational thought and a goodly portion of Trek canon say Trek time travel works on parallel universes/branching timelines, which in turn makes it useless in a vs.

Why don't you address my reasoning then, if "rational thought" (read: your personal beliefs on the real-life plausibility of time travel plus furious agreement with the status quo) determines that time travel in Star Trek works in such a way that changing the past is not meaningful.

I already did that. If time travel in Trek worked that way the changes would have happened in the past. Odd. They didn't. The very fact that the past you want to change exists means you failed in trying to change it.

[Stark]

Do you honestly believe this reasoning is a) compelling or b) relevant to a discussion of fiction?

[Batman]

Assuming this is still about how canon time travel on the Trek side would affect the Vs debate, yes.

[Bakustra]

I'm getting cross at people blithely assuming x is y. Rational thought and a goodly portion of Trek canon say Trek time travel works on parallel universes/branching timelines, which in turn makes it useless in a vs.

Why don't you address my reasoning then, if "rational thought" (read: your personal beliefs on the real-life plausibility of time travel plus furious agreement with the status quo) determines that time travel in Star Trek works in such a way that changing the past is not meaningful.

I already did that. If time travel in Trek worked that way the changes would have happened in the past. Odd. They didn't. The very fact that the past you want to change exists means you failed in trying to change it.

That's not rational thought, or even "rational thought". It doesn't address my reasoning either. It's quite simply pathetic and wrong. See, in City on the Edge of Forever, Edith Keeler surviving causes retroactive changes in the future that are witnessed by the crew of the Enterprise. In First Contact, the Enterprise sees the Earth becoming Borgified before going back in time to stop it. In Star Trek IV and Trials and Tribble-ations, they are able to alter the past by removing material, indeed living beings from it. Oh man!

Let's take your final sentence- a masterpiece of incoherence, which suggests that the past cannot exist if time travel is possible. Let's apply it to other things. Apparently, if I put a dent in my car, my car must not exist, because I changed it! Makes perfect sense if you're through the looking-glass!

Assuming this is still about how canon time travel on the Trek side would affect the Vs debate, yes.

Canon time travel allows you to meaningfully affect the past! That's the point of my examples! Have you seen any of the material in question, or are you just parroting? *skraawk* Canon! Parallel! Lol! Batman want a cracker! *skraawk*