Trekkie told me ST will win SW because of time travel?!?

[brianeyci]

Some notes on VOY Relativity.

SEVEN: Captain Braxton. Lower the temporal disruptor.
BRAXTON: It's armed. I'll activate it. Lower your weapons. Janeway.

What the hell is a temporal disruptor?

SEVEN: Also known as the Melting Clock Effect. It refers to a temporal fissure which slows the passage of time to a gradual halt.

So, time can be totally halted somehow.

DUCANE: The Pogo Paradox.
SEVEN: A causality loop in which interference to prevent an event actually triggers the same event.
DUCANE: Excellent. Can you give me an example?
SEVEN: The Borg once travelled back in time to stop Zefram Cochrane from breaking the warp barrier. They succeeded, but that in turn led the Starship Enterprise to intervene. They assisted Cochrane with the flight the Borg was trying to prevent. Causal loop complete.

So, Predestination is canon and is called "The Pogo Paradox".

DUCANE: Needless to say, we need to clean up the timeline. Someone must go back to the beginning and prevent the chain of events from occurring in the first place.

A counter-balance to the "time is multiverse claim because of Braxton's comment", because why would there be need to go back to the beginning and prevent the chain of events from occurring if the original timeline still existed? Remember, in DS9 they figured out how to transport into different multiverses. Braxton's single comment about "I can't remember the timeline" can be intepreted many ways, including "I can't remember the old timeline" but he just didn't want to get into details or something.

BRAXTON: Unless we repair the timeline, she's going to die. We're giving her another chance to save her crew and herself. We'll go back and retrieve Seven of Nine a microsecond before the explosion. That way no one will notice she's gone. Tempus fugit, Lieutenant.
DUCANE: Raise shields. Time frame, Stardate 52861.274. Delta quadrant. Spatial co-ordinates eighty seven theta by two seventy one. Target, USS Voyager.

No mention of "multiverse coordinates" or travel to a different universe. Only spatial and temporal coordinates. As well, more "repair the timeline" rather than "create a new timeline".

SEVEN: No doubt creating numerous paradoxes.
BRAXTON: And who do you think had to repair the damage? Me. She's reckless, she has no regard for the integrity of the timeline. I asked for her help once. She refused and I ended up stranded in the late twentieth century. Have you ever been to that time frame?

So even more proof that you need to "repair" paradoxes, and that paradoxes exist. As well, proof that Braxton did "remember the timeline". How can this be possible? He was lying to Janeway when he said "I have no memory of that timeline" then.

BRAXTON: Any luck reviving her?
DUCANE: No, sir.
BRAXTON: We'll have to recruit her again.
DUCANE: Sir, a fourth jump? She could suffer neural damage, even temporal psychosis.

For you transporter wankers, that means using a temporal transporter four or more times kills you. I don't know if that applies to other form of time travel though (Did Kirk travel back in time more than four times)?

Brian

[Stark]

Brian, when the 29th Fedders say things about time, you have to assume they're cagey or stupid. You can't fix paradoxes (indeed, paradoxes can't exist) and you can't shield against logic. They're just not being straight about it, or they're wrong. They way they talk, temporal shields would shield you against consequences: you could smoke forever and never get lung cancer. Noone could kill you. Punching a wall wouldn't hurt (or break the wall).

[Darth Wong]

SEVEN: Also known as the Melting Clock Effect. It refers to a temporal fissure which slows the passage of time to a gradual halt.

So, time can be totally halted somehow.

The notion of slowing down time is meaningless, since the concept of "slow" is defined by movement relative to ... time.

DUCANE: The Pogo Paradox.
SEVEN: A causality loop in which interference to prevent an event actually triggers the same event.
DUCANE: Excellent. Can you give me an example?
SEVEN: The Borg once travelled back in time to stop Zefram Cochrane from breaking the warp barrier. They succeeded, but that in turn led the Starship Enterprise to intervene. They assisted Cochrane with the flight the Borg was trying to prevent. Causal loop complete.

So, Predestination is canon and is called "The Pogo Paradox".

This does not explain why anyone retains knowledge of the original timeline before these alterations, since by definition none of that would have ever happened anywhere, assuming a single timeline.

DUCANE: Needless to say, we need to clean up the timeline. Someone must go back to the beginning and prevent the chain of events from occurring in the first place.

A counter-balance to the "time is multiverse claim because of Braxton's comment", because why would there be need to go back to the beginning and prevent the chain of events from occurring if the original timeline still existed? Remember, in DS9 they figured out how to transport into different multiverses. Braxton's single comment about "I can't remember the timeline" can be intepreted many ways, including "I can't remember the old timeline" but he just didn't want to get into details or something.

The fact that there are so many parallel timelines is already known in canon. You can't refute it by saying that Braxton's comments can be interpreted without them, or by pointing out that they've figured out how to transport to one of them (note: they have no control over which timeline they go to, even though we know from "Parallels" that there are hundreds of thousands at a minimum; there must be some anomalous condition which allows them to visit this particular one).

BRAXTON: Unless we repair the timeline, she's going to die. We're giving her another chance to save her crew and herself. We'll go back and retrieve Seven of Nine a microsecond before the explosion. That way no one will notice she's gone. Tempus fugit, Lieutenant.
DUCANE: Raise shields. Time frame, Stardate 52861.274. Delta quadrant. Spatial co-ordinates eighty seven theta by two seventy one. Target, USS Voyager.

No mention of "multiverse coordinates" or travel to a different universe. Only spatial and temporal coordinates. As well, more "repair the timeline" rather than "create a new timeline".

From their perspective, what's the difference between "repairing the timeline" and "creating yet another timeline where things aren't so fucked up as they are in this one"?

SEVEN: No doubt creating numerous paradoxes.
BRAXTON: And who do you think had to repair the damage? Me. She's reckless, she has no regard for the integrity of the timeline. I asked for her help once. She refused and I ended up stranded in the late twentieth century. Have you ever been to that time frame?

So even more proof that you need to "repair" paradoxes, and that paradoxes exist. As well, proof that Braxton did "remember the timeline". How can this be possible? He was lying to Janeway when he said "I have no memory of that timeline" then.

The whole point there is simply that he obviously believes there are separate timelines, rather than believing there is just one. And as Stark points out, a paradox is a problem in logic, not technology. It is only a problem, however, for a single-timeline theory. It is not a problem with parallel-timeline theories.

BRAXTON: Any luck reviving her?
DUCANE: No, sir.
BRAXTON: We'll have to recruit her again.
DUCANE: Sir, a fourth jump? She could suffer neural damage, even temporal psychosis.

For you transporter wankers, that means using a temporal transporter four or more times kills you. I don't know if that applies to other form of time travel though (Did Kirk travel back in time more than four times)?

Brian

No, it means that you might suffer brain damage after too many time-travel incidents. It doesn't say how severe this brain damage will be, although this might help explain how Kirk is such a fucking moron in ST2.

[brianeyci]

Brian, when the 29th Fedders say things about time, you have to assume they're cagey or stupid. You can't fix paradoxes (indeed, paradoxes can't exist) and you can't shield against logic.

Fine. So when they talk about paradoxes, either they are stupid or have a looser definition of paradox than we do.

They're just not being straight about it, or they're wrong. They way they talk, temporal shields would shield you against consequences: you could smoke forever and never get lung cancer. Noone could kill you. Punching a wall wouldn't hurt (or break the wall).

We know that Ent-E travelling through time is shielded from consequences of time. I believe the way to interpret temporal shields is that they take you "outside the timeline" so any changes to the timeline would not affect you, just like when Ent-E travels through time it is unaffected by the Borg assimilation. In other words, you are in a different frame of reference and the changes to other timeline no longer affect you. Which means that if you smoke a lot while under temporal shielding, you would still die, since the smoking happens in your frame of reference rather than the old timeline.

Brian

[brianeyci]

The whole point there is simply that he obviously believes there are separate timelines, rather than believing there is just one.

Braxton lying throws doubt on the whole piece of dialogue. If Braxton knew Voyager's understanding of time was limited, he could have bullshit however much he wanted to lie to Janeway. It does not necessarily mean he believes that alternate universes are created through every single time trip.

And as Stark points out, a paradox is a problem in logic, not technology. It is only a problem, however, for a single-timeline theory. It is not a problem with parallel-timeline theories.

The problem in logic is this (if I interpret correctly),

"If you can travel back in time and alter time, you can create a paradox like killing your grandmother. However, if you kill your grandmother, you would not exist. Therefore, travel back in time and altering time is impossible."

However this assumes that the alterations and the changes happen immediately. With the "changes in time take time to happen", or threaded/propagation of time theory I proposed, this is not a problem.

Time travels at time v.

Suppose current time is t.

You change time at time t - x.

Since the changes at time t - x travel at v (or maybe v + y), they will never catch up or will take time to catch up to t.

Therefore, you can exist long enough to raise your temporal shields and make yourself immune to changes in the timeline if you have temporal sensors, or exist long enough to go back in time to repair the change. It is not a paradox.

Ever play the Journeyman Project series? The concept is from there. You can have time travel without multiverse and paradoxes as long as it takes time for changes in time to propagate to the current time... ugh.

Brian

[Darth Wong]

We know that Ent-E travelling through time is shielded from consequences of time.

And what does it mean to be shielded from the consequences of time? Can you create a "shield" that will protect you from the consequences of having lost a leg in an accident when you were 5 years old, so that you still have the leg? You are just mindlessly quoting phrases which you don't even entirely understand.

I believe the way to interpret temporal shields is that they take you "outside the timeline" so any changes to the timeline would not affect you, just like when Ent-E travels through time it is unaffected by the Borg assimilation.

Yet time still passes for you, so obviously you must acknowledge the existence of parallel timelines in order to accept the existence of "temporal shielding". What do you not understand about this?

In other words, you are in a different frame of reference and the changes to other timeline no longer affect you. Which means that if you smoke a lot while under temporal shielding, you would still die, since the smoking happens in your frame of reference rather than the old timeline.

Brian

I love the way you try to refute the concept of multiple timelines by acknowledging that they exist. Brilliant.

[brianeyci]

And what does it mean to be shielded from the consequences of time? Can you create a "shield" that will protect you from the consequences of having lost a leg in an accident when you were 5 years old, so that you still have the leg? You are just mindlessly quoting phrases which you don't even entirely understand.

Fine, that was too vague. When I mean "consequences of time" I mean changes to the timeline.

Yet time still passes for you, so obviously you must acknowledge the existence of parallel timelines in order to accept the existence of "temporal shielding". What do you not understand about this?

Fine, parallel timelines must exist.

I love the way you try to refute the concept of multiple timelines by acknowledging that they exist. Brilliant.

Fine. But that does not mean it has to be impossible for true changes to the timeline to exist.

Brian

[SirNitram]

You know, the whole idea that 'changes in time take time to propagate' really outlines how utterly, patently absurd your attempts to make it sound like you know what you're on about are, Brian. How can the fact you were never born 'propagate'?

[Darth Wong]

The problem in logic is this (if I interpret correctly),

"If you can travel back in time and alter time, you can create a paradox like killing your grandmother. However, if you kill your grandmother, you would not exist. Therefore, travel back in time and altering time is impossible."

However this assumes that the alterations and the changes happen immediately. With the "changes in time take time to happen", or threaded/propagation of time theory I proposed, this is not a problem.

That "theory" you propose is meaningless. If you were never born in the first place, this does not need to "propagate" throughout the last 20 years to make you not exist now.

Time travels at time v.

Right there you demonstrate the utter meaninglessness of your theory. How can time be measured to have a rate of passage when the denominator of any rate calculation is also time by definition?

Suppose current time is t.

You change time at time t - x.

Since the changes at time t - x travel at v (or maybe v + y), they will never catch up or will take time to catch up to t.

Therefore, you can exist long enough to raise your temporal shields and make yourself immune to changes in the timeline if you have temporal sensors, or exist long enough to go back in time to repair the change. It is not a paradox.

Yet again, you demonstrate that you are an idiot and should not be allowed to discuss anything which remotely relates to anything in the real universe.

Ever play the Journeyman Project series? The concept is from there. You can have time travel without multiverse and paradoxes as long as it takes time for changes in time to propagate to the current time... ugh.

Brian

No, I have not played it. No, I do not accept its idiotic idea.

[Darth Wong]

Fine. But that does not mean it has to be impossible for true changes to the timeline to exist.

No, that's because we have OTHER reasons to know that it is impossible to create a paradox, like the fact that it is a logical paradox. It's like asking why it's impossible for something which happened to have never happened. You are literally asking us to prove to you that a self-contradiction in reality is not possible.

[brianeyci]

How can the fact you were never born 'propagate'?

Let me make it clear that I am not arguing this is how Star Trek time travel works. I am simply proposing a way to affect real change in the timeline which is not logically impossible and does not create a multiverse. Since the argument for the multiverse basically boils down to "it is logically impossible", this is how I am tackling it.

If we treat time as threaded, and each consequence taking time to happen, then the fact that you were never born can "propagate". It takes time for consequences to happen. If you were never born, it would take time for the consequences to catch up to your current time and overwrite the old timeline. I know, it sounds like a load of bullshit, but it is the way that Journeyman Project explains change to the timeline while allowing the agent (you) to fix the timeline.

Now, Krenim changes in time are shown by a "wave" through space. If the wave happens through space, why not through time? If they can change time at t - x and make the consequences happen faster than v, then the wave catches up and there is no need for the multiverse explaination.

Brian

[Darth Wong]

I am simply proposing a way to affect real change in the timeline which is not logically impossible and does not create a multiverse.

Except that it is logically impossible, fucktard.

If we treat time as threaded, and each consequence taking time to happen, then the fact that you were never born can "propagate".

You idiot ... if we treat time as threaded, then that is just another way of expressing the parallel timeline theory. The only difference between your theory and the parallel timeline theory is your notion that one timeline gradually "eats" another one; a notion which is pointless and solves no problem whatsoever.

[SirNitram]

How can the fact you were never born 'propagate'?

Let me make it clear that I am not arguing this is how Star Trek time travel works. I am simply proposing a way to affect real change in the timeline which is not logically impossible and does not create a multiverse. Since the argument for the multiverse basically boils down to "it is logically impossible", this is how I am tackling it.

Here's a suggestion, asshat. Extract your skull from your anus and leave this sort of thing to people who have actual competence. Your bullshitting and stringing together of concepts you so clearly have no comprehension of has gotten unbearable; why don't you just fucking unstick your skull and get the hint that you aren't as smart as you wish?

If we treat time as threaded, and each consequence taking time to happen, then the fact that you were never born can "propagate". It takes time for consequences to happen. If you were never born, it would take time for the consequences to catch up to your current time and overwrite the old timeline. I know, it sounds like a load of bullshit, but it is the way that Journeyman Project explains change to the timeline while allowing the agent (you) to fix the timeline.

You're an idiot. Once an event has occoured, it's effects are there, ironclad. The idea that it takes 'time' is an assholian, ridiculous concept. The concept is ridiculous: Take time to propagate through time! If you were less of an asstard, you might realize why that sentence is broken.

Now, Krenim changes in time are shown by a "wave" through space. If the wave happens through space, why not through time? If they can change time at t - x and make the consequences happen faster than v, then the wave catches up and there is no need for the multiverse explaination.

Brian

Are you seriously so fucking braindamaged that you don't understand the problem with 'Time to propagate through time', or are you just a fucking fanwhore who won't stop wanking? Jesus Christ. I enflame the entire outer cortex and I still get this shit; were you given a cranial implant via baseball bat to be this fucked up?

[Darth Wong]

I wish we could just sticky rebuttals, such as the fact that the Krenim timeship's "wave through space" could be just as easily explained as a visual effect of the unusual technology which they use in order to transition to a new timeline. The problem is that there are too many.

[brianeyci]

I wish we could just sticky rebuttals, such as the fact that the Krenim timeship's "wave through space" could be just as easily explained as a visual effect of the unusual technology which they use in order to transition to a new timeline. The problem is that there are too many.

Fine. Since the only evidence supporting the "eating timeline" theory is the Krenim example, I have to concede that there's no proof for it in the Trekverse.

I still don't see what is the problem of consequences taking time to happen and why you mock it SirNitram. It is not "take time to propagate through time", but "take time to propagate through the timeline/time thread."

Brian

[Darth Wong]

I still don't see what is the problem of consequences taking time to happen and why you mock it SirNitram. It is not "take time to propagate through time", but "take time to propagate through the timeline/time thread."

You honestly don't understand that if something happened 20 years ago, it has already had 20 years to propagate to the present?

[SirNitram]

I still don't see what is the problem of consequences taking time to happen and why you mock it SirNitram. It is not "take time to propagate through time", but "take time to propagate through the timeline/time thread."

Brian

Again, are you suffering some sort of massive cranial damage? They're the exact same sentences, with only the technobabble alteration of the latter!

[brianeyci]

You honestly don't understand that if something happened 20 years ago, it has already had 20 years to propagate to the present?

If something happened 20 years ago due to an outside (for example future) change in the timeline, then yes it would take 20 years to propagate or "overwrite" or "eat" the existing timeline. I don't see why that concept is so ridiculous.

Brian

[brianeyci]

I still don't see what is the problem of consequences taking time to happen and why you mock it SirNitram. It is not "take time to propagate through time", but "take time to propagate through the timeline/time thread."

Brian

Again, are you suffering some sort of massive cranial damage? They're the exact same sentences, with only the technobabble alteration of the latter!

No, you are treating time as a single entity. I am treating time as something that can be overwritten, rewritten, and the events themselves being different from the passage of time. Maybe "it takes time for time to happen" is the wrong kind of wording for what I was trying to express. How illogical is it that it takes time for events to happen (events representing the timeline)?

Brian

[Darth Wong]

You honestly don't understand that if something happened 20 years ago, it has already had 20 years to propagate to the present?

If something happened 20 years ago due to an outside (for example future) change in the timeline, then yes it would take 20 years to propagate or "overwrite" or "eat" the existing timeline. I don't see why that concept is so ridiculous.

Brian

It's ALREADY HAD 20 YEARS, you idiot! What don't you understand about this?

[SirNitram]

I still don't see what is the problem of consequences taking time to happen and why you mock it SirNitram. It is not "take time to propagate through time", but "take time to propagate through the timeline/time thread."

Brian

Again, are you suffering some sort of massive cranial damage? They're the exact same sentences, with only the technobabble alteration of the latter!

No, you are treating time as a single entity.

No, you dipshit. I am treating it as a direction. Because, while you were beating yourself stupid, science advanced and we now have four dimensions.

I am treating time as something that can be overwritten, rewritten, and the events themselves being different from the passage of time.

Here's the problem. Time is not a peice of paper, but a direction. Can you rewrite up or down? No. You cannot.

Maybe "it takes time for time to happen" is the wrong kind of wording for what I was trying to express. How illogical is it that it takes time for events to happen (events representing the timeline)?

Brian

Completely illogical. How long does it take the fact you were born to propgate to now? Answer: Ridiculous question. You were born then, the only thing 'propagating' is your life.

[brianeyci]

Completely illogical. How long does it take the fact you were born to propgate to now? Answer: Ridiculous question. You were born then, the only thing 'propagating' is your life.

Fine. It is ridiculous. Also, I was thinking that arguing the "it would take 20 years idea" would work because as it would take 20 years, you yourself would have advanced 20 years. But this obviously does not work, because the "does not work for 20 years" can be carried out to "does not work for n years".

So what happens if there is a specific explaination in a sci-fi series that says that time travel is not multiverse travel, but actual change to the timeline? How do you treat the idea then? As totally illogical? How is it possible to suspend disbelief on an illogical premise?

Brian

[Patrick Degan]

You know, as an OT aside, I don't recall a single script for Doctor Who ever generating the sort of idiocies which seem to have become common to Star Trek's conception of time travel —and Doctor Who is a series built around the central concept of a time traveler and his machine!

[Petrosjko]

So what happens if there is a specific explaination in a sci-fi series that says that time travel is not multiverse travel, but actual change to the timeline? How do you treat the idea then? As totally illogical? How is it possible to suspend disbelief on an illogical premise?

Where you can't explain the basis, you determine the pattern of the effects. For example, working out the rules of FTL travel for various science fiction franchises.

Same case with your question.

Basic SOD methodology and scientific method, Brian.

You know, as an OT aside, I don't recall a single script for Doctor Who ever generating the sort of idiocies which seem to have become common to Star Trek's conception of time travel —and Doctor Who is a series built around the central concept of a time traveler and his machine!

I only saw about a season or so of Tom Baker Dr. Who, but from what I observed, whatever Dr. Who did simply became part of the timeline. For example, his name-dropping bit about tossing an apple at Isaac Newton and then having a lengthy discussion with on physics.

[Darth Wong]

You know, as an OT aside, I don't recall a single script for Doctor Who ever generating the sort of idiocies which seem to have become common to Star Trek's conception of time travel —and Doctor Who is a series built around the central concept of a time traveler and his machine!

I only saw about a season or so of Tom Baker Dr. Who, but from what I observed, whatever Dr. Who did simply became part of the timeline. For example, his name-dropping bit about tossing an apple at Isaac Newton and then having a lengthy discussion with on physics.

The beauty of that approach is that the question of whether you have one timeline or many is simply never addressed, nor does it have to be. At no point do you need stupidity like "temporal shielding".