Ahhhhh, thank you. That was driving me nuts.
Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
Ahhhhh, thank you. That was driving me nuts.
Joe Taslim (The Raid, Furious 6) has joined the cast! Sounds like he might be Idris Elba's henchman or a rival.
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MintyNewsAndReviews/news/?a=123211
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MintyNewsAndReviews/news/?a=123211
that's what I was thinking as well.
More than a sabo.
1/12 of a henway.
don't do it! it's a trap!
Except he eventually DID. It's just that he wasn't going to go through the trouble of doing so unless Christopher was somebody important. If he HADN'T been, Kirk would have taken him into the future with a "tough break, sucka" where he probably would have landed a gig as a shuttle pilot.
Which is basically what happened with Gillian, except in her case they didn't bother to CHECK if she was someone important.
It's not shaky. It's completely nonsensical.
It's probably because they haven't finished filming it yet.
OTOH, it's worth considering that the shitstorm generated by prejudiced and obsessed fans can create a lot of negative publicity if too much information comes out at the wrong time. Normally this wouldn't be a problem if the studio promotes the movie smartly enough to drown out the naysayers (which is exactly what they DIDN'T do in either of the last two movies) but I suspect the need for secrecy is more about perception control by the target audience: they don't want 40 million potential viewers being broadsided by three or four thousand highly vocal reactionaries who are going to end up seeing the movie anyway.
Personally I'm predicting that Beyond will have more revealed in its main promotional campaign than either 09 or ID. Between pumping its presence as a 50th-anniversary special and the potential for Paramount to have flinched at the negativity surrounding statements on Khan last time around, I feel like we'll be seeing more of this one before it's out.
Also, Beyond's a rushed picture in ways that, by comparison, Into Darkness was positively glacial on. Not knowing much as yet doesn't surprise me.
Also, Beyond's a rushed picture in ways that, by comparison, Into Darkness was positively glacial on. Not knowing much as yet doesn't surprise me.
Except that, as we've known in this timeline since the 1890s, it is quite possible to have perfectly, absolutely, deterministic systems in which infinitesimally tiny changes, as in those from the fiftieth time one of those displaced molecules bumps another, results in dramatic shifts in the long-term behavior of a system. It's quite possible they don't either, of course. But the possibility is open.
So have you written in to the committee to collect your Nobel Prize yet? Because it sounds like you just developed a mathematical model for predicting Turbulent Flow, something that has eluded fluid dynamics for two hundred years and continues to defy analysis even in the age of supercomputers.
That is, if you can actually predict the extent to which a butterfly's wingbeats will affect the airflow of a volume of air, where the boundary conditions are, and how to calculate the cumulative effect of multiple wingbeats, you will have solved one of the most intractable problems in applied physics.
So you should totally write in to collect your Nobel Prize. Right now. Without delay. Unless of course you just made all of that up because it sounds right to you.
There is no such thing as "temporal physics." That's not a real discipline, and there are no theories pertaining to it. That is a concept that is ENTIRELY made up by Star Trek writers and/or Star Trek fans.
When those physicists are not asking the right questions and overlooking obvious answers then they're not asking the right questions and overlooking obvious answers, degrees or not.
The challenge question was: If time travel is possible, why do we not see time travellers or changes in the timeline?
My reply was two fold:
1) if they are ethical time travellers, we'd never know they were there because they were careful not to allow there presence to change the course of history.
2) if there were changes in the timeline, either accidental or deliberate, there is absolutely no way for us to know it. We can only perceive the "now" (present time). If someone changes the past, then the new past (from our perspective "now") has always been that way. If a time traveller today changes something that changes the future, since we don't know what the future is supposed to be, again we have no way of knowing a change has occurred.
So what evidence do these physicists expect to find, given the impossibility of our being able to even perceive said evidence?
I don't need to do ANY math to know that the force of my exhaled breath in the Midwest is not going to stir so much as a molecule of air on the East Coast. It's not going to even stir a molecule of air on the other end of my apartment.
Nope, science fiction writers and fans have been debating such things for a long time. SO have theoretical physicists.
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/the-physics-of-time-travel/
https://astrowright.wordpress.com/category/time-travel/temporal-mechanics/
http://www.space.com/21675-time-travel.html
plenty of other cites just a Google search away.
Last edited:
The 'obvious answer' being the one a bunch of fiction writers provided to make their plot work.
You do know that scientists have asked these questions, right? Its just unlike fiction writers, they have to dismiss things from being 'facts' when they don't have evidence to support a hypothesis. Theyre job is to try and understand how reality works, not tell people what they want to hear.
Star Trek wasn't scientifically inaccurate because its writers were 'better' or more forward thinking than scientists. It was inaccurate because a) it's fiction and accuracy wasn't the primary concern, and b) when they bothered, the writers typical interaction with their science advisors (who had degrees mind) went something like:
Writer: I need this to happen. Got any jargon or theories that sounds sorta similar?
There are people on this thread (and the board at large) who have and do write for Star Trek. Why don't you ask them if they consider themselves to know more about science than actual scientists?
This is my last post about this time travel bickering - I'm sick of contributing to our daily derailing. If anyone notices me getting dragged back in, feel free to give me a textual kick in the pants.
You do know that scientists have asked these questions, right? Its just unlike fiction writers, they have to dismiss things from being 'facts' when they don't have evidence to support a hypothesis. Theyre job is to try and understand how reality works, not tell people what they want to hear.
Star Trek wasn't scientifically inaccurate because its writers were 'better' or more forward thinking than scientists. It was inaccurate because a) it's fiction and accuracy wasn't the primary concern, and b) when they bothered, the writers typical interaction with their science advisors (who had degrees mind) went something like:
Writer: I need this to happen. Got any jargon or theories that sounds sorta similar?
There are people on this thread (and the board at large) who have and do write for Star Trek. Why don't you ask them if they consider themselves to know more about science than actual scientists?
This is my last post about this time travel bickering - I'm sick of contributing to our daily derailing. If anyone notices me getting dragged back in, feel free to give me a textual kick in the pants.
Last edited:
Lulz. If you can hear the exhale at the other end of your apartment, even if with a super-sensitive microphone, then "the force of [your] exhaled breath" [sic] stirred many, many molecules there. You shoulda done some math.
Still doesn't answer the question of running the math either
Personally, since Abrams is an alternate timeline, I'm not worried about time travel. Its a story writing device at best.
Still doesn't answer the question of running the math either
This isn't the thread or forum for a physics discussion using equations, but if you'd like to have that discussion, there's a Science and Tech forum. Given that I set a standard for detection, either by the unaided ear or with the help of a microphone, the movement of air as a result of the propagation of pressure waves should be obvious. But, if for some reason it isn't, as I said, feel free to create a thread and move the discussion over to Sci-Tech, and we can dig into the math, as time permits.
The first point is, his assertion is wrong. But secondly and more importantly, appealing to ignorance isn't an argument that carries any weight to prove a point. Nor does ignorance itself lead to knowledge.
I have little interest in such topics. School keeps me busy enough.Still doesn't answer the question of running the math either
This isn't the thread or forum for a physics discussion using equations, but if you'd like to have that discussion, there's a Science and Tech forum. Given that I set a standard for detection, either by the unaided ear or with the help of a microphone, the movement of air as a result of the propagation of pressure waves should be obvious. But, if for some reason it isn't, as I said, feel free to create a thread and move the discussion over to Sci-Tech, and we can dig into the math, as time permits.
The first point is, his assertion is wrong. But secondly and more importantly, appealing to ignorance isn't an argument that carries any weight to prove a point. Nor does ignorance itself lead to knowledge.
Also, my comment was largely sarcastic, as I am want to do. It seems this thread has largely gone of the rails with regards to film discussion.
Similar threads
