29th Century Federation vs. Galactic Empire(Split)

[SirNitram]

....

That's the most ridiculous theory I've ever heard outside of a discussion with an ASVS troll.

The timeline 'ceases to exist'? I'd love to see the quotes backing this utterly insane assertion up. Not that I wouldn't put it past Berman and Braga.. But it's still so utterly ridiculous I'm not even gonna humour you unless you can present some proof.

Seriously, listen to yourself. Deleting a timeline? How, precisely, would you do such? More to the point, how would you know it's gone? And, finally, it falls on the biggest problem: That time is a dimension, and actually obliterating a timeline would require erasing all of it's history.. And obliterating everyone from it.

[Guest]

Here's another, simpler analogy (that doesn't reference DBZ, ugh):

A timeline is like a text file. Time travel is like opening it, fooling with its contents, and saving it. Your theory suggests that every time a change is made, the changed version is saved in a new file, producing an old and new file. My theory states that the old file is written over, no longer existing on the hard drive.

Provide proof that the original files are still saved on the hard drive.

Nice analogy, sounds reasonable, except how could the traveler still exist once his timeline was destroyed, aka never existed? a loophole? plz explain.

[Eframepilot]

....

That's the most ridiculous theory I've ever heard outside of a discussion with an ASVS troll.

The timeline 'ceases to exist'? I'd love to see the quotes backing this utterly insane assertion up. Not that I wouldn't put it past Berman and Braga.. But it's still so utterly ridiculous I'm not even gonna humour you unless you can present some proof.

Seriously, listen to yourself. Deleting a timeline? How, precisely, would you do such? More to the point, how would you know it's gone? And, finally, it falls on the biggest problem: That time is a dimension, and actually obliterating a timeline would require erasing all of it's history.. And obliterating everyone from it.

I don't see what is so ridiculous about the concept. Why should a previous timeline continue to exist? When you save over a file, the old file is (essentially) gone.
For proof, there are Annorax's statements about erasing many species. There was his banquet of foods from planets whose races no longer exist... and never did. He doesn't rationalize that they are alive and well in alternate timelines. He believes that they are gone. There is the 29th and 31st century Federation who believe that screwing with the past is a serious business and are even in a "Cold War" over it. It is clear that the characters believe previous timelines do not have a physical existence, and the shockwaves shown in "Year of Hell" certainly back up this theory.
But I'm sure you'll disregard all this. You can just say that everyone in Trek who works with time travel is an incompetent idiot with no clue that they cannot "actually" change the past. You can say that the shockwaves in "YOH" were just an odd way of showing the changing of our perspective to a new timeline.
Ultimately, though, we assume the simplest explanation is true. It is simpler to believe that Annorax and ALL other characters in Trek (Kirk and Spock, too, if you think everyone post-TOS is an idiot) are right, and that the shockwaves of "YOH" are what they appear to be: the manifestation of the destruction of one timeline and its replacement by a new one. It is, in fact, impossible to prove that the old timelines don't still exist somewhere, hanging out with millions of invisible intangible unicorns (dark matter! Aha!), the Easter Bunny, God, and the still living Elvis Presley (possibly all one and the same?). So scientifically, the burden of proof is on you to show that the characters are wrong, that the shockwave WASN'T what it appeared to be, and that the former timelines, which we still have no evidence of, still physically exist.

[Eframepilot]

Here's another, simpler analogy (that doesn't reference DBZ, ugh):

A timeline is like a text file. Time travel is like opening it, fooling with its contents, and saving it. Your theory suggests that every time a change is made, the changed version is saved in a new file, producing an old and new file. My theory states that the old file is written over, no longer existing on the hard drive.

Provide proof that the original files are still saved on the hard drive.

Nice analogy, sounds reasonable, except how could the traveler still exist once his timeline was destroyed, aka never existed? a loophole? plz explain.

Think of it this way. In the other theory, the traveler exists in the new timeline completely independent of any cause. From the perspective of the new timeline's inhabitants, he appeared completely out of nowhere. Why is he in the new timeline? How can he exist without a cause in the new timeline? He just does; he's acausal. It's the same in my theory, except that the timeline he came from doesn't exist anymore. The traveler is protected because he is now in the new timeline. Once he is there, he is safe.

[Eframepilot]

Annorax in "Year of Hell": (from Delta Blues)

"This bottle is the only component left of the once powerful Malkoth race. Everything else about them--cities, culture, the very species itself--never existed...because of me." Annorax's voice is an odd mix of pride and shame. "Every dish you see here comes from a civilization that has been erased from time. Mr. Paris, you're devouring the last remnants of the Alsuran Empire.

Paris' interest in his salad diminishes in an instant.

"I have collected artifacts from...hundreds of worlds. This vessel is more than a weapon. It's a museum of lost histories."

To me, this sounds as if the timeline that contained the Malkoth and Alsurans doesn't exist anymore. It is impossible to provide greater proof than this, unless you want a statement from Q or someone else god-like (and even Q isn't infallible). I say again: the burden of proof is on you to show Annorax wrong. Your examples so far can easily be explained by a single "saved-over" timeline. Provide proof that previous timelines still exist.

[Eframepilot]

So... anyone have any comments?

[Eframepilot]

Since I'm so bored of being ignored, here's another point in favor of the "write-over" theory!

Matter and energy must be conserved, right? Well, which violates the conservation of energy more: the rearrangement of matter/energy transforming one timeline into another following a change a la the shockwave of "Year of Hell", or the spontaneous generation of an entire additional universe just because some kook slingshot around the sun at Warp 9.8 and killed his grandfather? The small violation of conservation of energy caused by a time traveler's presence in the same time frame in multiple places can be rationalized by assuming that the process of time travel somehow balances the excess of matter somewhere else in the universe (thank you, Darth Wong). However, there is NO way to rationalize the creation of entire additional universes, complete with the energy contained within, with any form of conservation of energy! (Unless, for every timeline created, another is snuffed out elsewhere in the multiverse. But hey! that's really my theory in disguise!)

So basically, the multiple physical timelines theory violates conservation of energy on a scale too large to comprehend, while my theory does not violate energy conservation (as badly). Nail in the coffin.

[tharkûn]

There are 4 general schools of thought on time travel:
Predistination. This one actually works without screwing with casuality. However regardless of what you do in the best ... you effect no loasting change.

Paradox. This one works but the paradox still exists. Normally this entails the universe to be in a state of flux or tossing in extra dimensions (or so I'm told).

Spawning. In this one an alternate universe spawns ex nilo and the traveller proceeds down the one timeline among the rest.

Observer effect. In this one the time traveller, by virtue of whatever mechanism got him there becomes acausal with respect to the past. He will recall the old time line, but will not be affected by the changes of the new timeline. In short the time traveller has no past after he time travels ... his entire "past" is just a last-thursdayism construct.

Please note ALL of these rationalize the grandfather paradox.

The first is out for ST because we do see people effect history, how is unknown ... but it happens.

The second might be true, but I get a headache every time I try to understand it.

The third has several major problems:

1. Violation of conservation of matter-energy. Where does the matter in this new universe come from?
2. What happens to the "hole" left when the time traveller departs?
3. How and why does this universe spin off?
4. How many universes are spun off? Is it possible to set up an infinite loop designed solely to spawn new universes?

The fourth, is the most plausible in terms of Star Trek. Matter does not leave the universe (and a volume of mass might go forward while the time traveller goes backward). The only real head scratching part is why do you become acausal, however that is no more unknown than how time travel itself works.

Why do I think the 4th (or possibly the 2d) is the best one?:
1. "Children of Time". The Defiant finds its own descendants, the universe changes when they DON'T go back in time. There is no reason for the descendants to vanish and no reason to create a new timeline.
2. "Time Squared". In this one the E-D goes into some type of temporal anomly which Picard had previously travelled through back in time 6 hours. After going through said anamoly the Picard from the future vanishes. Every other atom in the E-D manages to goes through, yet somehow the time travelling Picard doesn't make it to the new reality?
3. "Time's Orphan". Molly O'brien gets sent back in time several hundred years, the O'briens bring her forward, but don't do so quick enough. They end up setting the old Molly back who somehow meets young Molly. Young Molly is sent to the future and old Molly ceases to exist. Curiously enough we do NOT see a change in universes as we have no perspective to follow.
4. "Future's End" and "Relativity". In Future's end we leave a Braxton on the ground with no Timeship able to take him back to the future. In "Relativity" we find a Braxton who endured the 20th century and made it back to the future. Where does the Braxton in Relativity come from if he's back in the 20th century and the one in the 29th never lived in the 20th?

The main problem is that Trek waffles between theories 1, 2, and 3. Some things are predestined (like "Captain's Holiday"), others end up in paradox ("Yesterday's Enterprise"), and others end up with observer effect ("All Good Things").

The biggest problem with many worlds is WHERE DOES *ALL* THE MASS COME FROM?