How Star Trek Time travel works:

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2004-06-02 12:58pm

Stumbled apon this site, where my theory of trek time travel is also put forth by this guy:

http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/CopyrightProof.cfm

Check down to step 3. That happens to coincide almost exactly with my personal take of how "time travel" works in Trek and WHY "continuity" with other timelines is irrelevant. It also proves that time travel to save your own reality is futile. Its also why when you travel through time, events that should not happen seem to happen regardless. I.E., the recent Enterprise episode E2, where the Second enterprise should never have existed, yet it does.

Just curious as to what others think of this.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-06-02 01:02pm

Off to PST

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2004-06-02 02:07pm

My bad

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-02 03:10pm

Still humping this dead horse? It's too bad for you that this series was sold as a prequel, not a parallel universe, meaning that there's no explanation for events that wouldn't have been effected by the events of First Contact to change (like the Romulans developing perfect working cloaks or mind-melding being a freakish taboo disease vector). Nor do you have any proof that Trek time travel actually works like this. Nor does it explain internal continunity failures. And even if you're right, the writers are still chowderheads for leaving no clues for the viewer that this is a parallel universe, leaving it up to the fans to concoct elaborate theories to explain their apparent screwups.

EDIT: As an aside, I can't believe anyone still takes "John Titor" seriously, or ever did. Maybe that website is just a spoof and I missed it.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2004-06-02 04:07pm

Whether you take the guy seriously or not, the fact remains that this appears to be the basis of Trek Time travel. Not just for this series, but for all series. Its the only thing that explains the myriad of Voyager paradoxes especially in the episode "end game".

And yes Enterprise is a "prequel" as in it happens in a time period before Kirk's. Deal with it.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-03 03:41pm

Admiral_K wrote:Whether you take the guy seriously or not, the fact remains that this appears to be the basis of Trek Time travel. Not just for this series, but for all series. Its the only thing that explains the myriad of Voyager paradoxes especially in the episode "end game".

I invite you to prove it, then, instead of just wailing that it's true because you say so. I'm aware of the paradoxes in Trek, and they can be explained by branching timelines just as easily as this "many worlds" nonsense--and unlike "many worlds", there's actual evidence within Trek to support branching timelines (specifically, TNG's "Parallels", where we eventually saw hundreds of thousands of parallel Enterprises, all from the "present", but with different histories). The producers have already come out and said that this is a different timeline created by the events of First Contact. That blows the idea of a prequel out of the water, but at least it makes sense. Unfortunately, it doesn't explain why things that would be uneffected by the events of that film are different. Suspension of disbelief in the vs. debate sense would compel us to find an in-universe explanation. But this isn't a vs. debate and I'm not obligated to perform mental gymnastics to explain away bad writing.

And there's STILL the internal continunity errors, which I am now mentioning for the FOURTH time in two different threads, which you haven't addressed. And there's the fact that even if you're right, the writers are incompetent for leaving it to the viewers to guess.

And yes Enterprise is a "prequel" as in it happens in a time period before Kirk's. Deal with it.

I'm afraid you don't get to change the defintion of English words to suit your argument. A prequel is an extention of an existing narrative backwards--a new story about the characters and events which set up the old story. Any story set before the events of an existing story is not automatically a prequel, no more than any story set after an exsiting one is automatically a sequel (is Voyager a sequel to TNG?)

They called it a prequel, and then they blew it up when they admitted it's an alternate timeline. If they'd done that right at the beginning, they probably would have pissed off fewer fans. It STILL wouldn't excuse continunity failures within the series, and it doesn't excuse evil Vulcans who can't mind meld, Romulans with cloaks, Klingons who act like TNG space Vikings, important alien races Kirk, Picard, Sisko, and Janeway never heard of, and other such nonsense, but at least people wouldn't have been screaming "NCC-1701 was the first starfleet vessel called Enterprise, not this Akira clone", and the like.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2004-06-03 04:58pm

I'm aware of the paradoxes in Trek, and they can be explained by branching timelines just as easily as this "many worlds" nonsense

Sorry in advance if I'm being stupid, but surely branching timelines is just the many worlds theory? Well, possibly without explaining some quantum things but I'm not going to worry about that. The overall effect is the same anyway.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-03 07:52pm

Prozac the Robert wrote:
I'm aware of the paradoxes in Trek, and they can be explained by branching timelines just as easily as this "many worlds" nonsense
Sorry in advance if I'm being stupid, but surely branching timelines is just the many worlds theory? Well, possibly without explaining some quantum things but I'm not going to worry about that. The overall effect is the same anyway.

The many worlds theory, as outlined in the website linked in the first post, is that these many worlds already exist, and a time traveler isn't actually traveling through time so much as he is moving to a parallel universe that's however many years behind your universe. Branching timelines is the idea that originally, at the Big Bang, there was a single timeline, and each time an event has X possible outcomes (where X is any number greater than 1), X number of daughter timelines will be created, each with one of the possible outcomes. From the perspective of real world physics, both ideas have serious problems, but so does virtually everything else in Trek, so that's not at issue here.

Admiral_K's hypothesis boils down to this: time travel in Star Trek is of the many worlds variety, and when you travel backwards in time, say 20 years, you're actually moving to a parallel universe. But there's no guarantee that a random parallel universe 20 years behind yours will be EXACTLY like yours was 20 years ago. Hence, since Enterprise is a time travel series, even though it takes place ~100 years before Kirk's time, its not actually a telling of the events which happened 100 years before the Captain Kirk we know from the universe we saw in TOS.

My argument with Admiral_K is with these three assumptions:

1) Since this is a parallel universe and not the direct linear past of Captain Kirk, the writers have carte blanche to disregard Trek continunity.

2) This is a deliberate decision by the writers OR suspension of disbelief compels us to rationalize the continunity errors in this manner.

3) Anyone who choses not to accept this interpretation is wrong.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2004-06-04 08:50am

RedImperator wrote:
Admiral_K wrote:Whether you take the guy seriously or not, the fact remains that this appears to be the basis of Trek Time travel. Not just for this series, but for all series. Its the only thing that explains the myriad of Voyager paradoxes especially in the episode "end game".
I invite you to prove it, then, instead of just wailing that it's true because you say so. I'm aware of the paradoxes in Trek, and they can be explained by branching timelines just as easily as this "many worlds" nonsense--and unlike "many worlds", there's actual evidence within Trek to support branching timelines (specifically, TNG's "Parallels", where we eventually saw hundreds of thousands of parallel Enterprises, all from the "present", but with different histories).

Um hello? The whole thing with parallels was about "multiple quantam realities" aka the Many Worlds theory of quantam mechanics. I didn't know this but, I did a search on the subject to provide you with some links and found this: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... TimeTravel. Apparently Mike has come to the same conclusions about Trek time travel that I have. The fact that anytime a "time travel" event occurs in trek, the differences are ALWAYS remembered by the people actually doing the time traveling, where if they were truly altering their own timeline, their memorys should have been altered as well.

The producers have already come out and said that this is a different timeline created by the events of First Contact. That blows the idea of a prequel out of the water, but at least it makes sense. Unfortunately, it doesn't explain why things that would be uneffected by the events of that film are different. Suspension of disbelief in the vs. debate sense would compel us to find an in-universe explanation. But this isn't a vs. debate and I'm not obligated to perform mental gymnastics to explain away bad writing.

Why are you making this just about Enterprise? The fact is, evidence of the Many Worlds theory can be found in EVERY SINGLE trek series to date with multiple episodes in each series. I'll give you one from each as a start - TOS: Mirror Mirror, TNG - Parallels (this is the one that completely spells it out, and yet you ignore it completely), DS9 - Shattered Mirror, Voyager - End Game, Enterprise - E2

And there's STILL the internal continunity errors, which I am now mentioning for the FOURTH time in two different threads, which you haven't addressed. And there's the fact that even if you're right, the writers are incompetent for leaving it to the viewers to guess.

Irrelevant. You apparently have some sort of vendetta vs Enterprise. I'm arguing the mechanics of Trek Time travel. BTW, if you want to debate something about Enterprise and continuity errors, then produce some examples, I'll address them. Don't just throw out "look at all the continuity errors" and expect me to do your homework for you.

And yes Enterprise is a "prequel" as in it happens in a time period before Kirk's. Deal with it.
I'm afraid you don't get to change the defintion of English words to suit your argument. A prequel is an extention of an existing narrative backwards--a new story about the characters and events which set up the old story. Any story set before the events of an existing story is not automatically a prequel, no more than any story set after an exsiting one is automatically a sequel (is Voyager a sequel to TNG?)

Well, thats quite a statement you made. Lets take a look at the definition of a prequel shall we?

pre·quel ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prkwl)
n.
A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative takes place before that of a preexisting work or a sequel.

I think I'll let you slap your own forehead on that one.

Now, as far as something being a "sequel" or "prequel" to star trek. Yes Voyager most certainly can be considered a sequel to TNG and DS9, just as they were sequels to TOS. You see, "Star Trek" isn't about any particular group of people. Its about Human endeavors in the field of space exploration and colonization. Thats the thread that ties all of Star Trek together.

They called it a prequel, and then they blew it up when they admitted it's an alternate timeline. If they'd done that right at the beginning, they probably would have pissed off fewer fans. It STILL wouldn't excuse continunity failures within the series, and it doesn't excuse evil Vulcans who can't mind meld, Romulans with cloaks, Klingons who act like TNG space Vikings, important alien races Kirk, Picard, Sisko, and Janeway never heard of, and other such nonsense, but at least people wouldn't have been screaming "NCC-1701 was the first starfleet vessel called Enterprise, not this Akira clone", and the like.

There you go again off on some wild tangent about Enterprise. The competence or lack thereof of the writers and produces is irrelevent to the issue at hand: That Star Trek "time travel" isn't time travel at all, rather a shifting of quantam realities ala the Many World's theory which has no affect whoseoever on the previous timeline (other than the fact that the "original" person leaves it).

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-06-04 06:36pm

Admiral_K wrote: The fact that anytime a "time travel" event occurs in trek, the differences are ALWAYS remembered by the people actually doing the time traveling, where if they were truly altering their own timeline, their memorys should have been altered as well.

Erm-the very IDEA behind 'branching timelines' is that people DON'T alter theit OWN timeline, they create NEW ones.

Well, thats quite a statement you made. Lets take a look at the definition of a prequel shall we?
pre·quel ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prkwl)
n.
A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative takes place before that of a preexisting work or a sequel.

You ARE aware that by that definition, Moby Dick is a prequel to Stargate.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-06-04 09:13pm

RedImperator wrote:They called it a prequel, and then they blew it up when they admitted it's an alternate timeline. If they'd done that right at the beginning, they probably would have pissed off fewer fans. It STILL wouldn't excuse continunity failures within the series, and it doesn't excuse evil Vulcans who can't mind meld, Romulans with cloaks, Klingons who act like TNG space Vikings, important alien races Kirk, Picard, Sisko, and Janeway never heard of, and other such nonsense, but at least people wouldn't have been screaming "NCC-1701 was the first starfleet vessel called Enterprise, not this Akira clone", and the like.

Indeed. Even if we accept the notion that Boobyprise is a result of the events created by Worst Contact, and that the history of that Earth was altered by the appearance of the Borg, that still doesn't account for Romulans with cloaks 100 years before they were invented, the Klingon space-vikings, or mindmeld-as-AIDS-like-disease, or the existence of races totally unheard of in the original universe. Not even recourse to the Butterfly Effect can handwave away what in reality is Braga and co. simply pissing all over Star Trek's continuity with gleeful abandon.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-06-04 11:11pm

You ARE aware that by that definition, Moby Dick is a prequel to Stargate.

No, it isn't. The definition clearly means the narrative takes place before other preexisting instsallments of the same kind/series. You cannot have two completely unrelated things be sequels/prequels. Hence, it is stupid to say Moby Dick is a pequel of Stargate.

1. They aren't the same genre
2. They aren't the same title
3. They aren't the same series

Therefore, they are not related, nor are they prequels/sequels of each other.

Onlyone someone who is intentinally being caustic and poignant would take that definition to mean : Anything can be a prequel of something already written. It is obvious that isn't what it means.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-06-04 11:15pm

nimetski wrote:

You ARE aware that by that definition, Moby Dick is a prequel to Stargate.
No, it isn't. The definition clearly means the narrative takes place before other preexisting instsallments of the same kind/series. You cannot have two completely unrelated things be sequels/prequels. Hence, it is stupid to say Moby Dick is a pequel of Stargate.

1. They aren't the same genre
2. They aren't the same title
3. They aren't the same series

Therefore, they are not related, nor are they prequels/sequels of each other.

Onlyone someone who is intentinally being caustic and poignant would take that definition to mean : Anything can be a prequel of something already written. It is obvious that isn't what it means.

Sarcasm. It is a difficult concept.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2004-06-05 10:12am

RedImperator wrote:
Prozac the Robert wrote:
I'm aware of the paradoxes in Trek, and they can be explained by branching timelines just as easily as this "many worlds" nonsense
Sorry in advance if I'm being stupid, but surely branching timelines is just the many worlds theory? Well, possibly without explaining some quantum things but I'm not going to worry about that. The overall effect is the same anyway.
The many worlds theory, as outlined in the website linked in the first post, is that these many worlds already exist, and a time traveler isn't actually traveling through time so much as he is moving to a parallel universe that's however many years behind your universe. Branching timelines is the idea that originally, at the Big Bang, there was a single timeline, and each time an event has X possible outcomes (where X is any number greater than 1), X number of daughter timelines will be created, each with one of the possible outcomes. From the perspective of real world physics, both ideas have serious problems, but so does virtually everything else in Trek, so that's not at issue here.

Ah ok. I don't think that website is talking about the same many worlds theory as everyone else. This probably shouldn't be suprising.

Google search for "many worlds", take a look.

I stand by my thought that many worlds and branching timelines are the same thing.

On another note; there is no need to stick to any current scientific theory when dealing with timetravel. Chances are that we don't yet have the right theory if it is even possible.

If you get the chance, have a read of Pastwatch by Orson Scott Card. It has a semi-plausible system of timetravel, which deals with paradox fairly well without introducing new worlds. I'm not saying that it is the trek mechanism, just saying that when there is no real scientific understanding we might as well be open minded.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2004-06-05 11:44am

Batman wrote:
Admiral_K wrote: The fact that anytime a "time travel" event occurs in trek, the differences are ALWAYS remembered by the people actually doing the time traveling, where if they were truly altering their own timeline, their memorys should have been altered as well.
Erm-the very IDEA behind 'branching timelines' is that people DON'T alter theit OWN timeline, they create NEW ones.

"Branching timelines" is essentially the Many Worlds theory in practice. My point was, if they were truly "time traveling" they wouldn't remember things as being any differently than before they altered them.

Well, thats quite a statement you made. Lets take a look at the definition of a prequel shall we?
pre·quel ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prkwl)
n.
A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative takes place before that of a preexisting work or a sequel.
You ARE aware that by that definition, Moby Dick is a prequel to Stargate.

I didn't write the definition

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-06-05 11:46am

They're not the same thing, because for the "many worlds" model, the alternate timelines already exist, while for the "branching timelines" model, they are created when the action of time travel/time alteration occurs.

That's the difference.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2004-06-06 04:14pm

They're not the same thing, because for the "many worlds" model, the alternate timelines already exist, while for the "branching timelines" model, they are created when the action of time travel/time alteration occurs.

Sorry, but the whole notion that someone could make changes to a timeline that would have eliminated their existence, but they are somehow "protected" from those changes doesn't make any sense without the many worlds theory in practice. The reason they don't become erased from history is because their worldline continues on without them and they have entered a new one. Hell, if it were only "branching timelines" then how do you explain the existence of Admiral Sela? Her mother obviously wasn't the same Tasha Yar who died early on in TNG so where did she come from?

Given the fact, that they demonstrated 275,000 enterprises from 275,000 different Quantam Realities (or "worlds"), in the episode Parallels, the answer to such questions should be obious. The Many Worlds theory which is presented in the trek universe as being a fact of Quantum physics, is the most logical explanation that could account for the multitude of paradoxs associated with trek time travel that we have seen.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-06-06 06:35pm

Admiral_K wrote: Sorry, but the whole notion that someone could make changes to a timeline that would have eliminated their existence, but they are somehow "protected" from those changes doesn't make any sense without the many worlds theory in practice.

Yes it does, because under the 'branching timeline' theory those changes do not affect the timeline the time-traveler originally comes from...

The reason they don't become erased from history is because their worldline continues on without them and they have entered a new one.

As per the 'branching timeline' theory.

Hell, if it were only "branching timelines" then how do you explain the existence of Admiral Sela? Her mother obviously wasn't the same Tasha Yar who died early on in TNG so where did she come from?

The timeline that was created when they sent her back on the Enterprise-C, branching in turn from the one that was created when the Ent-C moved to TNG now.
Unless you have proof that the timeline we see Admiral Sela in is the same one we saw before 'Yesterday's Enterprise'?

Given the fact, that they demonstrated 275,000 enterprises from 275,000 different Quantam Realities (or "worlds"), in the episode Parallels, the answer to such questions should be obious.

Er, why? All this shows is that by then there are 275,000 timelines containing E-Ds. As the Trek universe is lousy with temporal anomalies and time travel (intentional and otherwise) I find that unsurprising.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-06-06 06:43pm

Admiral_K wrote:
The Many Worlds theory which is presented in the trek universe as being a fact of Quantum physics,
Where, exactly, do they do that?
is the most logical explanation that could account for the multitude of paradoxs associated with trek time travel that we have seen.

Too bad the characters seem to disagree, at least where time travel is concerned.
If all the Borg can achieve by time-travelling in 'First Contact' is going to another universe where they've already won, why does Picard bother to follow them?

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2004-06-08 08:08pm

Batman wrote:
Admiral_K wrote: Sorry, but the whole notion that someone could make changes to a timeline that would have eliminated their existence, but they are somehow "protected" from those changes doesn't make any sense without the many worlds theory in practice.
Yes it does, because under the 'branching timeline' theory those changes do not affect the timeline the time-traveler originally comes from...

I say again, The whole concept of "Branching timelines" makes no sense without the many worlds theory. How can they be "Creating" timelines by entering them? These other timelines have historys, people who are in them and "time traveling" themselves. The likely truth is, those timelines already existed and they are merely entering and participating in them. Changes made in these timelines don't affect them because, in their home world line things happened exactly as they remembered. The changes only occur in the parrallel reality.

The reason they don't become erased from history is because their worldline continues on without them and they have entered a new one.
As per the 'branching timeline' theory.

Again, the whole concept of branching timelines makes no sense without the many worlds theory.

Hell, if it were only "branching timelines" then how do you explain the existence of Admiral Sela? Her mother obviously wasn't the same Tasha Yar who died early on in TNG so where did she come from?
The timeline that was created when they sent her back on the Enterprise-C, branching in turn from the one that was created when the Ent-C moved to TNG now.
Unless you have proof that the timeline we see Admiral Sela in is the same one we saw before 'Yesterday's Enterprise'?

It could be the same timeline, or it could be a different one. The whole point is, that without the many worlds theory, such a paradox makes no sense whatsoever.

Given the fact, that they demonstrated 275,000 enterprises from 275,000 different Quantam Realities (or "worlds"), in the episode Parallels, the answer to such questions should be obious.
Er, why? All this shows is that by then there are 275,000 timelines containing E-Ds. As the Trek universe is lousy with temporal anomalies and time travel (intentional and otherwise) I find that unsurprising.

Parallels is demonstrated proof of the existence of multiple (and likely infinate) quantum realities in Star Trek.

Why is it so hard to grasp that your "multiple timelines" Is actually the Many worlds theory?

Lets look at Spankys definition of multiple timelines:
They're not the same thing, because for the "many worlds" model, the alternate timelines already exist, while for the "branching timelines" model, they are created when the action of time travel/time alteration occurs.

That's the difference.

Now, it would seem much more likely that the timelines are already there, and the time travelers are merely entering them rather than actually creating them entirely. Since it would seem much more feasible, to through some technobabular way enter a parallel reality, rather than create an entirely new timeline from scratch Logic would indicate that the former is much more likely than the later.

We have demonstrated evidence of multiple alternate realities co-existing with the ones we've seen in the main storylines of trek (parallels, mirror mirror, end game, etc).

Unless you can account for the numerous paradoxes trek time travel would create (which are neatly explained in the Many Worlds Theory), then your bastardized "branching timelines" theory is insufficient to replace it as the most logical means of trek time travel.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2004-06-08 08:14pm

Batman wrote:
Admiral_K wrote:
The Many Worlds theory which is presented in the trek universe as being a fact of Quantum physics,
Where, exactly, do they do that?

Parallels, Mirror Mirror, et al.

is the most logical explanation that could account for the multitude of paradoxs associated with trek time travel that we have seen.
Too bad the characters seem to disagree, at least where time travel is concerned.
If all the Borg can achieve by time-travelling in 'First Contact' is going to another universe where they've already won, why does Picard bother to follow them?

Picard merely reacted to what he saw. While traped in their "temporal wake" Picard glimpsed at a quantum reality where the Borg succeeded in their mission, and assimilated Earth. This is akin to when the multiple Enterprises were able to view other Enterprises in Parallels. His gut instinct, was to therefor follow them back and try and stop them. In the timeline we viewed in the movie, he succeeded and we get to see part of the timeline upon which the Enterprise series is based. No doubt, in the other timeline which he'd glimpsed just before, he failed for some reason or another.

Personally, I believe Janeway came to this conclusion herself which is why she so easily disregard starfleet protocols in time traveling back in the End Game series finale. She realized she wouldn't be able to alter her own timeline, but perhaps she felt some measure of satisfaction in helping a very very similar Janeway in a parallel universe get her crew home quickly and with much less deaths.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-06-08 09:43pm

Admiral_K wrote: I say again, The whole concept of "Branching timelines" makes no sense without the many worlds theory. How can they be "Creating" timelines by entering them?

They DO NOT ENTER timelines.
They create a new one by SPLITTING THE ONE THEY COME FROM.
Does the term 'trousers of time' mean anything to you?

These other timelines have historys, people who are in them and "time traveling" themselves.

How, exactly does this contadict 'branching timelines?Those come from before the split!!!

The likely truth is, those timelines already existed and they are merely entering and participating in them.

Uh-huh. Because billions of preexisting timelines that are virtually identically to each other always having existed is more plausable than them being virtually identical comes from most of their history being shared.

The reason they don't become erased from history is because their worldline continues on without them and they have entered a new one.
As per the 'branching timeline' theory.

Again, the whole concept of branching timelines makes no sense without the many worlds theory.

And again you're wrong.

Hell, if it were only "branching timelines" then how do you explain the existence of Admiral Sela? Her mother obviously wasn't the same Tasha Yar who died early on in TNG so where did she come from?
The timeline that was created when they sent her back on the Enterprise-C, branching in turn from the one that was created when the Ent-C moved to TNG now.
Unless you have proof that the timeline we see Admiral Sela in is the same one we saw before 'Yesterday's Enterprise'?
It could be the same timeline, or it could be a different one. The whole point is, that without the many worlds theory, such a paradox makes no sense whatsoever.

Endlessly repeating a baseless argument does not make it any more true.

Given the fact, that they demonstrated 275,000 enterprises from 275,000 different Quantam Realities (or "worlds"), in the episode Parallels, the answer to such questions should be obious.
Er, why? All this shows is that by then there are 275,000 timelines containing E-Ds. As the Trek universe is lousy with temporal anomalies and time travel (intentional and otherwise) I find that unsurprising.

Parallels is demonstrated proof of the existence of multiple (and likely infinate) quantum realities in Star Trek. [/quote]
I like how you repeat that without ever proving it's true. Show where my explanation is WRONG.

Why is it so hard to grasp that your "multiple timelines" Is actually the Many worlds theory?

Why is it so hard to actually PROVE that if it's right?

Lets look at Spankys definition of multiple timelines:
They're not the same thing, because for the "many worlds" model, the alternate timelines already exist, while for the "branching timelines" model, they are created when the action of time travel/time alteration occurs.
That's the difference.

Now, it would seem much more likely that the timelines are already there, [/quote]
How instead of repeating that over and over again, why don't you actually SHOW it to be true.

We have demonstrated evidence of multiple alternate realities co-existing with the ones we've seen in the main storylines of trek (parallels, mirror mirror, end game, etc).

Too bad all of them can be explained by the branching timeline theory.

Unless you can account for the numerous paradoxes trek time travel would create

Why don't you SHOW me one that CAN't be explained by the branching theory?[/quote] (which are neatly explained in the Many Worlds Theory), then your bastardized "branching timelines" theory is insufficient to replace it as the most logical means of trek time travel.[/quote]
And while we're at it why don't you SHOW it's more logical instead of infinetely repeating that statement?

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-06-08 09:48pm

Admiral_K wrote:
Batman wrote:
Admiral_K wrote: The Many Worlds theory which is presented in the trek universe as being a fact of Quantum physics,
Where, exactly, do they do that?
Parallels, Mirror Mirror, et al.

...which are handily explained by the branching timelines theory. BETTER, actually, because unlike the Many Worlds theory it explains why all those paralle realities are virtually identical.

is the most logical explanation that could account for the multitude of paradoxs associated with trek time travel that we have seen.
Too bad the characters seem to disagree, at least where time travel is concerned.
If all the Borg can achieve by time-travelling in 'First Contact' is going to another universe where they've already won, why does Picard bother to follow them?
Picard merely reacted to what he saw. While traped in their "temporal wake" Picard glimpsed at a quantum reality where the Borg succeeded in their mission, and assimilated Earth. This is akin to when the multiple Enterprises were able to view other Enterprises in Parallels. His gut instinct, was to therefor follow them back and try and stop them. In the timeline we viewed in the movie, he succeeded and we get to see part of the timeline upon which the Enterprise series is based. No doubt, in the other timeline which he'd glimpsed just before, he failed for some reason or another.

So basically you're arguing they have no clue how time travel works in the first place?

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2004-06-09 08:38pm

Batman wrote:
Admiral_K wrote:
Batman wrote: Where, exactly, do they do that?
Parallels, Mirror Mirror, et al.
...which are handily explained by the branching timelines theory. BETTER, actually, because unlike the Many Worlds theory it explains why all those paralle realities are virtually identical.

Um do you just make shit up when it doesn't fit with the facts?

In Parallels, none of the parallel worlds was "identical" to the other. There were subtle differences in some, but in others there were things far changed. In some, it was something as simple as a picture being moved, or someone being present at a party and another where he wasn't. With infinite realities, such things are possible. Things became gradually more different as we saw universes where Picard was dead, and Riker was captain of the Enterprise. Universes where the Borg succeeded and the Enterprise was heavily damaged. We've also seen other far more radically different universes such as the one seen in Yesterday's Enterprise
, and the numerous episodes based off Mirror, Mirror

"Virtually identical" my ass...

For the "Branching timelines theory" as people have been defining it, there would have to have been a time travel element that created each of the 275,000 enterprise universes we saw. Unless, you are defining it as being part of the Many Worlds theory, which it essentially is, then I win the argument by default.

is the most logical explanation that could account for the multitude of paradoxs associated with trek time travel that we have seen.
Too bad the characters seem to disagree, at least where time travel is concerned.

I don't see the Characters as disagreeing with me. Besides, I've got a mountain of evidence to support my side of things, even if they did.

If all the Borg can achieve by time-travelling in 'First Contact' is going to another universe where they've already won, why does Picard bother to follow them?
Picard merely reacted to what he saw. While traped in their "temporal wake" Picard glimpsed at a quantum reality where the Borg succeeded in their mission, and assimilated Earth. This is akin to when the multiple Enterprises were able to view other Enterprises in Parallels. His gut instinct, was to therefor follow them back and try and stop them. In the timeline we viewed in the movie, he succeeded and we get to see part of the timeline upon which the Enterprise series is based. No doubt, in the other timeline which he'd glimpsed just before, he failed for some reason or another.
So basically you're arguing they have no clue how time travel works in the first place?

The obviously have an idea of how to do it. But as far as the mechanics of time travel, no they have only the vaguest clue of how it works. I'm sure it appears to them that they are actually "changing history" when the reality is they are merely shifting to parallel worlds which are so nearly identical to the ones they left, they write off any variation of their memories and history as being the result of some strange "temporal anomaly".

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2004-06-09 08:46pm

Ya know, quite frankly either you are going to buy into it or not. I'm going to post some Quotes from Mike Wong's "Favorite trekkie Arguments" to help illustrate it since you simply aren't getting it. This isn't an "appeal to authority," merely referencing someone whom I consider to be an expert on not only the Star Wars, but the Star Trek universe.

In reference to the Federation using time travel:

What's the point? In the universe of Star Trek, there are an infinite number of parallel timelines (as seen in "Parallels" and "Mirror, Mirror"). When a ship performs a time-jump, it must create a divergent timeline (more on this later). It can wreak havoc in this divergent timeline, but why would its departure have any effect on its original timeline?

The evidence of the Many Worlds theory in star trek:

Now, I must preface this with the very important caveat that the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics has been widely discredited. However, if we are using suspension of disbelief, then we must assume that it is valid anyway, because the parallel universes predicted by the "many worlds" theory have actually been observed in Star Trek. Parallel universes were seen first in "Mirror, Mirror" and then more spectacularly in "Parallels", where hundreds of thousands of Enterprise-D's from parallel universes could be seen

How the many worlds theory neatly explains star trek time travel:

City on the Edge of Forever": When Doctor McCoy jumped through the time portal, the other crewmembers on the planet's surface perceived the sudden disappearance of the entire Federation. Supposedly, he changed the past so that the Federation was never created. But that is impossible because the other crewmen still existed. They still had memories of the Federation. They still had Federation uniforms and Federation weapons. The "many worlds" theory neatly explains this problem: McCoy and all of the people on the planet's surface were all transported into a timeline (or parallel universe, whichever you prefer) in which the Federation never existed. The original timeline is not destroyed, thus explaining why they still remember its history, but they can no longer perceive it or return to it. When Kirk and Spock jumped back to "fix the damage", they caused everyone to jump into another timeline, in which the Federation was founded again, but with slightly different events surrounding Edith Keeler's death. This is not the same as "going home", but as far as they're concerned, it's good enough.

"Star Trek First Contact": When the Borg jumped into the past, the crew of the Enterprise perceived the disappearance of the Federation's entire history. This is impossible because they still exist, and they still retain all of their memories, equipment, history files, etc. Data suggests that they were somehow "shielded from the changes in the timeline", but he doesn't even attempt an explanation of how this is possible. The "many worlds" theory provided a neater explanation: they were dragged into a new timeline by the Borg sphere's "temporal wake", and when they stayed in the wake long enough to perform a similar jump, they ended up in yet another timeline. In this new timeline, they tried to "fix" events so that they unfolded more or less as they remembered (albeit with an orbital bombardment of Cochrane's launch facility which didn't occur in their original history).

Note that the "many worlds" theory also explains the biggest conundrum of STFC: why the Borg fought their way to Earth before performing the time-jump, instead of making the jump from the safety of their own territory. The answer is that a time-jump would move the travellers to a divergent timeline but it would have no effect on the original timeline. Therefore, it would do the Collective no good. You might ask why they performed the jump at all if this is the case, but the Queen's attack had failed and she was facing imminent destruction. A jump into a divergent timeline would not change history in her original timeline, but she may have found the prospect preferable to simply being destroyed by one of Picard's quantum torpedoes.

"Yesterday's Enterprise": History seems to change when the Enterprise-C appears two decades away from where it was supposed to be destroyed in battle. But the original timeline is not gone, and in the new timeline, Guinan can actually perceive that the Enterprise-C belongs to a timeline other than her own (she can even perceive some of the history of that timeline). This perception manifests itself as a disquieting sensation that something is "wrong", but that's an oversimplification. After all, how can a timeline be "wrong?" With countless timelines in existence as seen in "Parallels", why would one be more "right" or "wrong" than another? A better explanation is that Guinan perceived enough of the Enterprise-C's original timeline to know that she thought it was better than the one she was currently in. We jumped to a divergent timeline when the Enterprise-C arrived and we jumped to another divergent timeline when it departed.

On the Many World's theory being the most likely for trek "time travel":

Although the "many worlds" theory may have been discredited in real life, it seems to be the only way to explain Star Trek time travel as we've seen it on the show. It explains causality paradoxes in "City on the Edge of Forever" and STFC, and it also explains why time travel is not being used to solve problems, because it means that time travel doesn't really change anything. It only moves the traveller into an alternate universe where events unfold more to his liking. An interesting consequence of this explanation is that we've really been following a group of characters as they move from timeline to timeline, so we haven't stayed in a single universe throughout the series run of Star Trek.

I rest my case. The readers can decide for themselves what they see and believe.

Quite Frankly Mr Batman, I'd see the burden is on you to show A) how the "branching timelines" is different from the many worlds theory, and B) how this somehow is a better fit for what we've observed in Star Trek Time travel.