RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,914
Posts: 5,388,276
Members: 24,718
Currently online: 488
Newest member: Tribblemaker

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Retro Review: Profit and Lace
By: Michelle on Aug 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old March 26 2014, 02:50 PM   #211
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
This is simple. When the E-C left the timeline, what continued was the war timeline. 22 years transpired differently than what we knew of in TNG. When the E-C re-appears during the war that's what we see. When the E-C is sent back to the time it disappeared it then altered the timeline starting from the Battle of Narendra-3, resulting in the TNG timeline.
What you consider simple, I'd call convoluted and illogical.
Oddly enough, the treknobabble is alot less convoluted and more logical than the look and source of the E-C being swapped around alternate universes.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
The Enterprise-C did reappear instants after she vanished back in 2344, didn't she?
So according to the universal action-reaction principle there was never any reason for the timeline to change in the first place.
Only if you chose not to follow the E-C's point of view. As pointed out by another poster, it depends whose POV we're following and when.

If you were at Narendra-3, the E-C disappeared momentarily into a vortex and then re-appeared and continued to fight until she was destroyed.

If you were on the E-C, you appeared 22 years later in a timeline caused by your disappearance (because the E-C hasn't returned yet). When you on the E-C goes back in time, you're wiping out the timeline where you've disappeared for 22 years.

If you were on the TNG E-D, it would've appeared that a vortex appeared in front of you and then closed.



Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
It was a plot device, created in a rush, to have a Tasha available that could travel back in time, but fortunately Moore and Carson relocated events with/after "Redemption II" into a "parallel time line" or "parallel universe" (Carson)
When they talk of parallel timeline or universe they're referring to the one spawned from the E-C temporarily hopping to the future. That doesn't indicate a timeline that goes back enough to warrant a different looking E-C.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
That's laughable. You were just defending Guinan's authority on the timetravel subject here. How can it be a plothole when they're taking the word of Guinan, an authority on fates of people she hasn't met?
As the audience we do understand that Guinan is right, but the protagonists in-universe lack that information and understanding, therefore the "universe at war" Picard takes a leap of faith which even Michael Piller found rather hard to believe from the point of view of our protagonists.
The writers disagree as they provide supporting dialogue (specifically Picard's history and trust in Guinan) to push the protagonists to accept Guinan's advice.
GUINAN: We've known each other a long time. You have never known me to impose myself on anyone or take a stance based on trivial or whimsical perceptions. This time line must not be allowed to continue. Now, I've told you what you must do. You have only your trust in me to help you decide to do it.
...
LAFORGE: How could Guinan know that history has been altered if she's been altered along with the rest of us?
DATA: Perhaps her species has a perception that goes beyond linear time.
PICARD: There are many things about her species we can't easily explained. Yet it is very possible she is correct. A ship from the past has traveled through time. How can we know what effect those events will have on the present. Indeed, we shall never know for certain, if Guinan is correct. But I have decided the consequences of that possibility are too grave to ignore. Dismissed.
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
I concur with your observations except for the last paragraph, because I'm afraid you are overlooking one decisive detail:
  • “We were responding to a distress call from the Klingon outpost on Narendra Three”. Since the Enterprise-C received and responded to the distress call there was apparently no Romulan jamming, but the Klingon High Command (apparently) and Starfleet (obviously) never learned what was going on (“universe at war” Riker: “There's no record of the Romulans ever assaulting the Enterprise-C” - "universe at war" Data: "Presumed destroyed. The Enterprise C was last seen near the Klingon outpost Narendra Three exactly twenty two years, three months and four days ago.")
That "decisive" detail only tells us that in the War timeline:
1. the Klingon outpost's distress messages were not received by the Klingons or the Federation
2. and there was no evidence that the Klingons received or confirmed that the E-C was responding to their distress call.
3. the Federation had no idea what happened to the E-C or even connected the dots to the battle at Narendra-3.

Contrast that to the TNG timeline where:
PICARD: Enterprise C? She was lost at the battle of Narendra Three, defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.
1. the E-C was confirmed to be defending a Klingon outpost at Narendra 3
2. the E-C was fighting Romulans
3. the E-C lost the battle

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Obviously at least the Klingons at the outpost knew that a Federation starship was rushing to their defense, and the eye- or earwitness accounts of one or some Klingon survivors could confirm that it was a
  • Romulan stealth attack (probably with the intent to frame the Federation for it, compare to "the Mind's Eye")
  • a Federation starship that had come to their rescue
How would they know unless they saw the E-C? And if they did then they'd have eyewitness accounts of what it looked like. Plus, Starfleet and the Klingons would be examining the debris and if it belonged to a mystery ship instead of the native E-C that'd raise red flags.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Sorry Bob but there isn't any evidence of anything relocated to a "parallel universe."
Even as a Thermian you can't dismiss Guinan's and Sela's statements in "Redemption II", that do exactly suggest that, as erroneous.

To quote Maurice: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (i.e. that they didn't mean what they said).
As a Thermian, Guinan's statements in "Redemption" are inline with the events of YE. Sela's statements due to her unreliable character could go either way. In anycase, there isn't any evidence to support your relocated universe, IMHO.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
I have accepted these as facts and concluded an alternate theory from these, however - as this thread his shown - some are eager to twist and discredit these facts in order to prevent this theory from being taken seriously.
Most of the replies I've seen are not twisting or discrediting of facts by others going on here. You'd get more traction from your relocated E-C if you argued that there is an alternate Probert-universe caused by the time-travelling Rasmussen or from "First Contact" or from the myriad of time-travelling stories in TNG except for YE. YE just doesn't go back far enough and requires the native E-C for the story to work.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
All we know is that War Tasha wanted her death to count for something. Was her death ultimately meaningful? Yes. It's the same argument of any person who enlists to fight for their country only to die as a prisoner of war. I'd be hard pressed to call it a meaningless death.
IMHO, we then have "meaningful and noble intentions and/or actions" but to label something as "meaningful death" requires a bit more.
Lumping Tasha's death on Vargus is inconsistent with your argument here. Of course it was called out as a meaningless death.

Volunteering to die on the E-C and then dying as a prisoner of war while knowing your sacrifice altered history to save the Federation. That's meaningful.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline  
Old March 26 2014, 02:53 PM   #212
Rarewolf
Rear Admiral
 
Rarewolf's Avatar
 
Location: Devon, England
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
What you consider simple, I'd call convoluted and illogical. The Enterprise-C did reappear instants after she vanished back in 2344, didn't she?
So according to the universal action-reaction principle there was never any reason for the timeline to change in the first place.

No. All it tells me is that the last Enterprise-C "seen" in our universe at Narendra III was the Probert design, before the Klingons' visual capabilities were taken out by the Romulans. Except for the Romulans (no information exchange prior to "Redemption II" but before ST VIII-FC) apparently neither the outpost Klingons or the Federation ever saw the returning ship from the future.

It stands to reason that everyone in Starfleet assumed the Enterprise-C to have been destroyed at Narendra III to be the Probert design. I think it's rather simple.

Bob
You ignore the simplest explanation - that follows reality - that the Probert design never got off the drawing board.

If as you suggest everyone assumed that only the Probert design was destroyed, why do they later revise that opinion? Surely you suggest two different Enterprise Cs were involved in the battle, but since Yar's Enterprise was destroyed they'd have no visual proof, to know two different designs were there.

Instead you suggest the real Enterprise C was a different design to the other Ambassadors seen in Redemption and Emissary. I really fail to see the logic in that.
__________________
"Weaselling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals - except the weasels" Homer Jay Simpson
Rarewolf is offline  
Old March 26 2014, 03:06 PM   #213
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
This is simple. When the E-C left the timeline, what continued was the war timeline. 22 years transpired differently than what we knew of in TNG. When the E-C re-appears during the war that's what we see. When the E-C is sent back to the time it disappeared it then altered the timeline starting from the Battle of Narendra-3, resulting in the TNG timeline.
What you consider simple, I'd call convoluted and illogical. The Enterprise-C did reappear instants after she vanished back in 2344, didn't she?
So according to the universal action-reaction principle there was never any reason for the timeline to change in the first place.
It was a plot device, created in a rush, to have a Tasha available that could travel back in time, but fortunately Moore and Carson relocated events with/after "Redemption II" into a "parallel time line" or "parallel universe" (Carson)
Exactly my (not very well expressed) point. In other instances of time travel given upthread, it has always been people travelling into their PAST. The Enterprise-C situation is different - contemporary events create a vortex which removes the ship for an instant, only for it to reappear a moment later. From the perspective of 2366 this is all decades-old history - nothing was ever in danger, nothing should ever have changed. It's the same with Mark Twain, who's disappearance and reappearance are all part of past events - they should not rewrite the present at all.

If the E-D had created the vortex on the other hand and forcibly removed the E-C from her time, then I would have expected to see substantial interruptions to the timeline! We can see an example of this in "Shockwave", when Captain Archer is displaced into the future by Daniels. A similar situation occurs in TCOTEOF when McCoy goes back in time and saves Edith Keeler (except for Kirk et al who are in a zone of Guardian Protection). Likewise in "First Contact" the Borg travel back and remove Cochrane; the E-E is protected inside the Borg's Time Tunnel which they do not leave until history is "fixed".

Having the War-verse be a separate quantum universe (to use the "Parallels" terminology) rather than an altered version of the present universe (which couldn't exist anyway, see above) makes a lot more sense to me. The only question is where the point of divergence is. The crew posits that it's the battle of Narenda, but if it's a different universe then it really could be anywhen!


beamMe wrote: View Post
Mytran wrote: View Post
However, I don't see how the YE-universe can continue on once the E-C returns to her own time and does the noble sacrifice thing. Wasn't the act supposed to STOP the Klingon war? You may be right that it failed to change anything, but there's a depressing thought for the war-torn crew of the E-D, they all died for nothing!
I'm afraid, from their pov they did die for nothing.
That's a weakness in the narrative of that story.
I have to agree that its the most likely outcome - the war-torn crew were making decisions based on limited information and a bartender's intuition. They guessed that the point of divergence was the Narenda attack and surmised that they may be able to better their lives by sending the E-C back. They were wrong.

DATA: There is a high degree of probability that the temporal rift is symmetrical, Captain
Data suggests this, perhaps as a warning that Romulan ships could come through the rift as well. However, if this is the case, wouldn't time pass equally on both sides? Does that mean that the 24 hours which passed in 2366 also passed in 2343? I have to wonder what the Romulans were doing all this time!
Mytran is offline  
Old March 26 2014, 03:17 PM   #214
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

I think Data pointed out that the -C would appear at "almost the exact moment" she disappeared. It's kinda like the temporal vortex in "Future's End" or the black hole in ST'09, where time moved at a different rate at each end (seconds at one end were years at the other)
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline  
Old March 26 2014, 06:26 PM   #215
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post

I have accepted these as facts and concluded an alternate theory from these, however - as this thread his shown - some are eager to twist and discredit these facts in order to prevent this theory from being taken seriously.

Translation:
I have accepted these suppositions as "facts" and concluded a convoluted theory from those, however - as this thread has shown - no matter how many people point out the holes in my "facts" or provide evidence counter to my argument, I will doggedly push this theory like a 9/11 truther.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is online now  
Old March 26 2014, 07:17 PM   #216
largo
Fleet Captain
 
largo's Avatar
 
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

i'm pretty sure tasha yar never dies in any timeline, but is teleported away by an alien entity to a world populated entirely by tasha yar from various timelines. there they play on the beach, write poetry, and get minxy by the light of the twin moons.

its just as likely.
__________________
SIG 1701-A
largo is offline  
Old March 26 2014, 08:00 PM   #217
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
This is simple. When the E-C left the timeline, what continued was the war timeline. 22 years transpired differently than what we knew of in TNG. When the E-C re-appears during the war that's what we see. When the E-C is sent back to the time it disappeared it then altered the timeline starting from the Battle of Narendra-3, resulting in the TNG timeline.

You put it a lot more clearly than I did upthread.
beamMe is offline  
Old March 26 2014, 08:06 PM   #218
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

STRenegade wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
The war timline still goes on. We are just not following what happens in that universe.

The AbramsUniverse didn't get winked out of existence just because Nero fell into a black hole. The MirrorUniverse also still goes on as infrequent visits showed.
What are you talking about?
This comment was only for the altenate War Timeline, since it is unknown whether or not it continued. It has nothing to do with the Mirror Universe (already established as a parallel universe despite any interactions with the Prime one) or the JJverse (how you came to that conclusion is beyond me) which exists because Prime Spock and Nero went backwards in time (only way to rectify that timeline is if Spock and Nero were pulled back to their time the second they arrived in the past).
You are trying to make a distinction were none exists.
Why do you separate the alternative timeline we see in YE from the one in "Mirror Mirror", the one we see briefly in "First Contact" or the one from "Star Trek"?
beamMe is offline  
Old March 26 2014, 08:28 PM   #219
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
I think Data pointed out that the -C would appear at "almost the exact moment" she disappeared. It's kinda like the temporal vortex in "Future's End" or the black hole in ST'09, where time moved at a different rate at each end (seconds at one end were years at the other)
I had a search through the transcript and couldn't find that reference (although I may have missed a certain phrase). However it would be an odd definition of a "symmetrical" tunnel if it had different behaviour at each end. Maybe Data simply meant a ship could travel both ways?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
1. Enterprise(original) goes to Psi2000
2. Enterprise(original) 3 days later time travels back 3 days
3. Enterprise(original) goes to her next destination instead of Psi2000

Since the Enterprise(original) was free to go to another destination and not be doomed repeat the events of Psi2000 over and over again (looping back to step 1) then their time traveling is insulating them from the effects of going back in time and also giving them the ability to overwrite their timeline once they are back in normal time, IMHO.
I suspect we're just interpreting the episode's clues in two radically different ways (rather than there being any actual misunderstanding of events) but just to clarify what I think is going on, I thought I should get the crayons out



From the Enterprise's POV, there is no "rewinding" involved - they are just 3 days older now than the rest of the universe! And since the data banks and memories of the crew appear intact, there would be no danger of repeating the same events over and over again - they'd know exactly what to avoid! However, as they have (IMHO) overlapped themselves in the timeline, the last thing they would want to do is return to PSI-2000, as there's already an Enterprise there.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Also notice, "Captain. We have three days to live over again." If there was a duplicate ship/timeline Spock would've likely said instead, "we need to time travel forward 3 days to prevent contaminating our timeline."
While it's interesting to speculate on what character might have said, all we know for sure is what was actually said and done. At the end of the episode, Kirk sets off for their "next" mission. Spock does not raise an objection, indeed this is probably the best thing to do to avoid bumping into their past selves.

SPOCK: This does open some intriguing prospects, Captain. Since the formula worked, we can go back in time, to any planet, any era.
If the NT timewarp merely rewinds the Enterprise along its own timeline, it would never be able to go further back than it's own construction. Spock's comment strongly indicates otherwise, unless he was just guessing (and Vulcans do not guess )





Mytran is offline  
Old March 26 2014, 11:03 PM   #220
STRenegade
Lieutenant Commander
 
STRenegade's Avatar
 
Location: What? You rapist!
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

beamMe wrote: View Post
STRenegade wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
The war timline still goes on. We are just not following what happens in that universe.

The AbramsUniverse didn't get winked out of existence just because Nero fell into a black hole. The MirrorUniverse also still goes on as infrequent visits showed.
What are you talking about?
This comment was only for the altenate War Timeline, since it is unknown whether or not it continued. It has nothing to do with the Mirror Universe (already established as a parallel universe despite any interactions with the Prime one) or the JJverse (how you came to that conclusion is beyond me) which exists because Prime Spock and Nero went backwards in time (only way to rectify that timeline is if Spock and Nero were pulled back to their time the second they arrived in the past).
You are trying to make a distinction were none exists.
Why do you separate the alternative timeline we see in YE from the one in "Mirror Mirror", the one we see briefly in "First Contact" or the one from "Star Trek"?
Because once again did the War Timeline continue or not, or was it part of some temporal event that was rectified when the E-C went back? There is a distinction, and it is that while the Mirror and JJ (unfortunately) universes are permanent, the War Timeline is up for question as to whether or not it is.
__________________
Apparently now a days when you use the word 'silly', people think its a bad word. If I wanted to call you an idiot, I would call you an idiot.
STRenegade is offline  
Old March 26 2014, 11:33 PM   #221
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

I think the War Timeline has to continue, because Tasha Yar keeps on surviving in the regular TNG timeline even after the vortex has closed and war with the Klingons is averted.

If Tasha had come from a simple rewriting of the main TNG timeline then she would have vanished once her timeline of origin was eliminated, just like alt-Picard did in Time Squared when the crew took a different route.
Mytran is offline  
Old March 27 2014, 12:23 AM   #222
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Mytran wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
I think Data pointed out that the -C would appear at "almost the exact moment" she disappeared. It's kinda like the temporal vortex in "Future's End" or the black hole in ST'09, where time moved at a different rate at each end (seconds at one end were years at the other)
I had a search through the transcript and couldn't find that reference (although I may have missed a certain phrase). However it would be an odd definition of a "symmetrical" tunnel if it had different behaviour at each end. Maybe Data simply meant a ship could travel both ways?
That's kinda how I took it, that it was a 2-way vortex based on this dialogue (and also included where Data said they'd appear almost the same instant she left):
DATA: There is a high degree of probability that the temporal rift is symmetrical, Captain.
PICARD: Then what would happen if the Enterprise C were to fly back through it?
DATA: Back, sir? The Enterprise C would emerge in her own time period at almost the same instant she left.
Mytran wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
1. Enterprise(original) goes to Psi2000
2. Enterprise(original) 3 days later time travels back 3 days
3. Enterprise(original) goes to her next destination instead of Psi2000

Since the Enterprise(original) was free to go to another destination and not be doomed repeat the events of Psi2000 over and over again (looping back to step 1) then their time traveling is insulating them from the effects of going back in time and also giving them the ability to overwrite their timeline once they are back in normal time, IMHO.
I suspect we're just interpreting the episode's clues in two radically different ways (rather than there being any actual misunderstanding of events) but just to clarify what I think is going on, I thought I should get the crayons out



From the Enterprise's POV, there is no "rewinding" involved - they are just 3 days older now than the rest of the universe! And since the data banks and memories of the crew appear intact, there would be no danger of repeating the same events over and over again - they'd know exactly what to avoid! However, as they have (IMHO) overlapped themselves in the timeline, the last thing they would want to do is return to PSI-2000, as there's already an Enterprise there.

Yes, that's how I'd draw it in chalk as well

However where we differ in interpretation are:

1) The Enterprise goes backwards in time along the same route they came.
2) The events of the episode at Psi2000 take well less than a day (0.2 stardates and 19 minutes) which would mean 3 days prior that the Enterprise was not at Psi2000.
3) The Enterprise that jumped back in time should have detected or encountered the Enterprise enroute to Psi2000 or doing something else given that the time-traveling Enterprise took the same path.
4) Yet they don't run into each other.
5) Spock never even mentions the possibility of duplicates or implications. Instead he says, they get to live those days over again implying they can repeat it and Kirk decides to change it.

This effect occurs also in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" where the Enterprise at the end, goes further back in time than the beginning of the episode and then overwrote the events where the Enterprise interacted with Christopher and the guard. Where we should have seen two Enterprises at the same time, we only saw the one doing the overwriting.
SPOCK: Logically, as we move faster and faster toward the sun, we'll begin to move backward in time. We'll actually go back beyond yesterday, beyond the point when we first appeared in the sky. Then, breaking free will shoot us forward in time, and we'll transport you back before any of this happened.
KIRK: You won't have anything to remember, because it never would have happened.
So instead of seeing the Enterprise tractor the F-104, we saw the Enterprise get low enough to beam Christopher on the Enterprise onto the F104 to overwrite Christopher but with no memory of the time traveling. Ditto for the AF guard.

Apply this to "The Naked Time" and instead of seeing another Enterprise on it's way to Psi2000, we see the Enterprise head off to another destination - altering history.

Mytran wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Also notice, "Captain. We have three days to live over again." If there was a duplicate ship/timeline Spock would've likely said instead, "we need to time travel forward 3 days to prevent contaminating our timeline."
While it's interesting to speculate on what character might have said, all we know for sure is what was actually said and done. At the end of the episode, Kirk sets off for their "next" mission. Spock does not raise an objection, indeed this is probably the best thing to do to avoid bumping into their past selves.
As said above, I don't think Spock was hiding the idea that another Enterprise was out there since he pulls the same logic in "Yesterday's Enterprise".

Mytran wrote: View Post
SPOCK: This does open some intriguing prospects, Captain. Since the formula worked, we can go back in time, to any planet, any era.
If the NT timewarp merely rewinds the Enterprise along its own timeline, it would never be able to go further back than it's own construction. Spock's comment strongly indicates otherwise, unless he was just guessing (and Vulcans do not guess )
Since we see the Enterprise able to further back than their lifetime I would suggest that there is no such restriction.

From observing "The Naked Time" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday", I'd say that:
1) While the ship is time-traveling "slowly/normally" forward she can interact/overwrite into the timeline.
2) When she is traveling quickly (forwards or backwards) she is unable to interact with the timeline. This allows her to not overwrite her past existence/history as she travels to and from her home century.
3) But what this also means is that the time-travel is sequential and not parallel. We don't get to see two Kirks or two Enterprises here in normal time ala Back to the Future.

I know, odd rules, but that's what we can observe

So, a thought experiment.
1) Enterprise appears and Christopher flies up in his F104 to investigate.
2) Christopher disappears from his F104 and never has a child to lead the Saturn mission.
3) The timeline now proceeds differently than what was recorded in TOS.
4) Enterprise jumps forward in time back to their own time and discover it has changed.
5) Enterprise goes back in time with Christopher before step 1 and overwrites history by beaming Christopher back and not having the Enterprise tractor and crush the F104 and leaves back to their own time.
6) History flows as it was recorded in TOS with Christopher.

Functionally this isn't that different than YE. In steps 3 and 4, it's a different timeline with different histories because Christopher disappeared and the Enterprise has to go back in time to undo aka restore it back to the way they remembered it.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline  
Old March 27 2014, 02:08 AM   #223
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Mytran wrote: View Post
I think the War Timeline has to continue, because Tasha Yar keeps on surviving in the regular TNG timeline even after the vortex has closed and war with the Klingons is averted.

If Tasha had come from a simple rewriting of the main TNG timeline then she would have vanished once her timeline of origin was eliminated, just like alt-Picard did in Time Squared when the crew took a different route.
"Time Squared" is quite a bit different than "Yesterday's Enterprise". The alt-Picard and alt-shuttle was tied to the living vortex and didn't function normally until he intersected with the time he disappeared. The reason why they disappeared may not have been time-related but simply because the E-D flew into it with the alt-Picard. The Vortex wanted them since Troi indicated that it was focused on getting the "brain" of the E-D. You might say they were lucky to have a spare Picard to give to the Vortex

Contrast that to YE where there was no such effect on the E-C crew or ship.

As to War Tasha surviving in the TNG timeline, why wouldn't she? If time-travelers can retain their memory and sensor data of altered timelines that are erased ("Tomorrow is Yesterday", "The Naked Time", "First Contact", "Children of Time") then War Tasha surviving when her timeline is erased should not present an issue, IMHO.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline  
Old March 27 2014, 08:17 AM   #224
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Mytran wrote:
I had a search through the transcript and couldn't find that reference (although I may have missed a certain phrase). However it would be an odd definition of a "symmetrical" tunnel if it had different behaviour at each end. Maybe Data simply meant a ship could travel both ways?
I checked. I had it the phrasing slightly wrong:

DATA: There is a high degree of probability that the temporal rift is symmetrical, Captain.

PICARD: Then what would happen if the Enterprise C were to fly back through it?

DATA: Back, sir? The Enterprise C would emerge in her own time period at almost the same instant she left.

PICARD: Right in the middle of the battle with the l Romulans.

DATA: Yes, sir.


I agree, "symmetrical" was probably put in there to make it clear that a return journey was possible.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline  
Old March 27 2014, 03:32 PM   #225
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

@ Mytran

Very concise "Naked Time" graphic that illustrates the issue. I like it. And much better than my "crayons" (actually "highlighters") as most will agree.

@ All

I thought it might be a good idea to ask Andrew Probert, why he included the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise on the conference lounge display, and this is what he said:

"I didn’t want to clutter up the display. The atomic carrier is there simply for scale, being a somewhat known reference." (Andrew only provided side views for the sculptor)

Of course, from a real life production point of view, we shouldn't forget that the series was made for general, average and ordinary people (that's what I meant with "normal" in the closed TNG thread).

From an in-universe point of view in the 24th Century the starships on display would be the known size reference to get an idea of the carrier size, though.

Anyway, I provided an in-universe explanation, but anything that could suggest that the Enterprise-C on the wall display is canon, authentic and genuine is obviously not what some people here want to hear.

@ sojourner

I think you better have your translator examined and fixed. Cadet Porky Pig could probably do it for you.

Sure, if Fleet Admiral Shanthi or Starfleet's queen bitch Nechayev would have learned from Guinan what happened in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and then confront Picard, he would have been the one "responsible" who "sent" Tasha Yar to the past in military lingo.

But Guinan (Ron Moore) presented the information in a fashion that even corn farmer Joe Sixpack from Iowa with no military background could understand, that this is not what actually happened in "Yesterday's Enterprise".

Again, as the final screenplay writer for "Yesterday's Enterprise" Ron Moore could have easily made "Redemption II" compatible with events in "Yesterday's Enterprise", but he did not! That's rather clear evidence that him and Carson deliberately relocated "Yesterday's Enterprise" into a "parallel universe" (Carson), because that elegant move also took care of a couple of other problematic issues (which I will apparently need to spell out at the earliest next convenience).

I'm looking forward to explanations why he made Guinan and Sela say something differently. Because he was an incompetent screenplay writer? Because he was a sadist who anticipated that fans would be at each other throats debating how to interprete this "inconsistency"?
I really wonder who is in need of explaining.

The one thing I increasingly notice in this discussion is that most participants have no problem accepting the revisionistic nature of retroactive continuity, but are utterly unable to accept the possibility that a revision could equally itself be revised - and with the consequence that an erased design (Probert's Enterprise-C) has been restored like the supposedly revised timeline in "Yesterday's Enterprise".

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
That "decisive" detail only tells us that in the War timeline:
1. the Klingon outpost's distress messages were not received by the Klingons or the Federation
2. and there was no evidence that the Klingons received or confirmed that the E-C was responding to their distress call.
3. the Federation had no idea what happened to the E-C or even connected the dots to the battle at Narendra-3.

Contrast that to the TNG timeline where:
PICARD: Enterprise C? She was lost at the battle of Narendra Three, defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.
1. the E-C was confirmed to be defending a Klingon outpost at Narendra 3
2. the E-C was fighting Romulans
3. the E-C lost the battle

How would they know unless they saw the E-C? And if they did then they'd have eyewitness accounts of what it looked like. Plus, Starfleet and the Klingons would be examining the debris and if it belonged to a mystery ship instead of the native E-C that'd raise red flags.
Because the Klingon/s surviving the Romulan assault (the witness/es of what really happened at Narendra III) had learned of Garrett's first message and her subsequent distress call:

TASHA: Enterprise C is sending out a distress call, sir. Audio only.
GARRETT [OC]: This is Captain Garrett of the Starship Enterprise, to any Federation ship. We have been attacked by Romulan warships and require immediate assistance. We've lost warp drive. Life support is failing.

Obviously no long-range communication had been possible, but even a Klingon communicator could have picked up this vital information, even if they had been "blinded".
If the Enterprise-C received and acknowledged the outpost's distress call, but nobody else ever heard it, this would suggest that at least some form of Klingon short-range communication had remained intact.
Of course, I'd announce my coming on the same frequency as the caller, but apparently that was only short-range.

And the Klingon survivor/s could have pieced together that someone had come to their rescue because of the sudden interruption of the Romulan bombardment when the four warbirds diverted their fire against the Enterprise-C to get rid of this uninvited Federation eyewitness.

The decisive element (also according to an original screenplay draft) was to have Klingon witnesses to tell what really happened.

On the contrary, with no Klingon survivors left alive but wreckage of a Federation starship, the whole thing could have looked like an unprovoked Federation attack on a Klingon outpost where both perished in the mutual fire exchange. Even better than what the Roumulans could have hoped for.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Lumping Tasha's death on Vargus is inconsistent with your argument here. Of course it was called out as a meaningless death.

Volunteering to die on the E-C and then dying as a prisoner of war while knowing your sacrifice altered history to save the Federation. That's meaningful.
I can immediately think of another (4th) but truly "meaningful death" of Tasha Yar (which I forgot to list): Man your post until the very last second to ensure the existence of the galaxy and every living being in it.

So out of these four deaths, two are most definitely "meaningful" (because of the meaningful outcomes) while the other two are debatable, at best.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Robert Comsol; March 27 2014 at 03:48 PM.
Robert Comsol is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.