Time traveling

[Greg Cox]

It might be a good question to ask the OP why they think time travel is the more critical determination, or less believable, than each of the other elements of science fiction listed by various posts here.

It may come down to the fact that we know, basically, how certain things work.

Transporter: E=MC2.

Faster than light travel, she ships never actually reach the speed of light, but arrive at the destination as fast or faster than light by so called dune effect. That's where the warp engines come into play, the warp bubble around the ship shrinks the space in front of the ship and enlarges it behind it.

Even if these things are not possible, at least there's a theory behind them.

For time travel, there is no "explanation", it just happens... And time traveling must be pretty precise, one second in the wrong direction and who knows what might happen.

But why do we have to believe that this stuff is "possible" to enjoy it? It's fiction, an exercise in imagination. An entertainment.

I sincerely doubt that Jack the Ripper was actually an ageless energy being, but I'm not going to reject "Wolf in the Fold" because of it . . .

And I can think of lots of episodes that don't involve time-travel that aren't nearly as enjoyable as, say, "Tomorrow is Yesterday" or "Little Green Men."

 

[JesterFace]

But why do we have to believe that this stuff is "possible" to enjoy it?

I guess that's just the way I am...

 

[Greg Cox]

But why do we have to believe that this stuff is "possible" to enjoy it?

I guess that's just the way I am...

Fair enough. But do you have to believe in vampires to watch BUFFY? Or believe that gamma rays can turn people into super-strong green giants to enjoy THE AVENGERS?

Most importantly, some of those time-travel TREK episodes are really good, so it would a shame to skip them . . ..

 

[JesterFace]

Fair enough. But do you have to believe in vampires to watch BUFFY? Or believe that gamma rays can turn people into super-strong green giants to enjoy THE AVENGERS?

Most importantly, some of those time-travel TREK episodes are really good, so it would a shame to skip them . . ..

I'm not always like that, too stubborn to enjoy weirdness.

I can enjoy a weird science story without over analyzing it =)

 

[uniderth]

The biggest part I don't like about time travel episodes is changing that past. If time travel were possible you couldn't change that past. Whatever you would have done would already be part of the history of the president. You couldn't go back in time and assassinate George Washington because he never was assassinated. Therefor whatever attempt you would make, clearly never succeeded.

 

[JWPlatt]

Too many people assume changes in the past ripple forward as retroactive changes in the same timeline. There are a number of existing interpretations, including Many Worlds, without certainty that any of them are correct. Even quantum physicists and cosmologists whose life work includes this domain don't know for sure. And so I doubt anyone in this thread could possibly know better than them whether Star Trek time travel stories are more out of line than any other science fiction element they use.

 

[Melakon]

The simplest explanation is that time travel, the transporter, warp drive, and everything else is possible due to a science we don't yet understand.

 

[HIjol]

Time Travel, and the other "soft science", as it was referred to, appeals to my Fantasy Hopeful side. It also makes me think along a "logical" path of, "If this technology/ability did exist, how could it work within the rules of the Universe as we understand them?", i.e., paradox, conservation of momentum, exchange of energy, and the like. It is fun to put the brain power to it to try to figure it out, sometimes, but more often, it is an indulgence and a lark...and, it is a big part of what makes Science Fiction fun' IMHO.

 

[MacLeod]

Whilst time-travel of a sprts to the fture is possible i.e accelerating close to the speed of light, time travel to the pasy is highly improbable. A least based on our current undertanding of physics, our understnaidng changes over time what we hold to be true today might have been in the past looked upon as science fiction.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's very simple. Rotating west, you gain yesterdays. East, you accumulate tomorrows.

(Yes, I just watched "Time After Time" again last week. What a great movie.)

 

[Melakon]

I've only seen it once, in a theater when it came out, but it was great.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I thought it went like this

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkplPbd2f60[/yt]

 

[Greg Cox]

^ So if you jump to the left, you go back in time, but if you jump to the right, you go forward?

 

[Kor]

Time travel is no more or less impossible than any of the other magical technologies and phenomena depicted in the Trek universe, which all require suspension of disbelief.

As a literary device, time travel has been a staple of science fiction writing since the 19th century, used by renowned SF authors such as H.G. Wells, Ray Bradbury, Kurt Vonnegut, Isaac Asimov, Harlan Ellison, and more. It has also made for some of the greatest Trek stories ever told.

So I really don't see any reason to get hung up on this.

Kor

 

[Zonker]

My main problem with time travel is that they use it too much.

 

[Greg Cox]

My main problem with time travel is that they use it too much.

As opposed to, say, alien viruses or Klingon politics or Prime Directive debates or diplomatic missions or holodeck malfunctions or god-like beings or berserk computers or any number of other STAR TREK staples?

Just off the top of my head, only four out of the original 79 episodes were time-travel eps. That's what? Only 5% of TOS?

If we're talking movies, it's three out of twelve.

And if we're talking the latter-day series, I'm too lazy to add them all up, but we're probably talking a dozen or so episodes out of hundreds of hours of Star Trek shows.

For a science-fiction show, that doesn't strike me as too much.

 

[JWPlatt]

I think they use the good guys versus the bad guy too much. And way too many "issue" shows. Those percentages must be through the warp nacelles.

 

[Zonker]

My main problem with time travel is that they use it too much.

As opposed to, say, alien viruses or Klingon politics or Prime Directive debates or diplomatic missions or holodeck malfunctions or god-like beings or berserk computers or any number of other STAR TREK staples?

Don't forget transporter malfunctions. And yes they did overuse all of those (though I'll admit I actually liked the Klingon politics).

As far as the numbers go, TOS keeps it to a minimum but over all there are 49 episodes of star trek (not counting TAS or the movies) that involve time travel At least according to Memory Alpha That's about one every 14 episodes which may not seem like too much but I was a little tired of them by the time I got to Enterprise.

 

[uniderth]

I get a little annoyed with the overuse of faster than light travel. Once in a while is ok, but every episode, really? that's 100% of Star Trek episodes feature Faster than Light travel. Can't the writers be a bit more creative?

 

[Greg Cox]

Fun with statistics. 49, really? That's more than I expected. Maybe I just remember the good ones? But even if that's one every fourteen episodes, that adds up to about one or two a season, right?

Maybe I have a higher tolerance for time-travel, but that sounds about right for a science fiction show.

Mind you, I just ran my own numbers and apparently I've used time-travel in five out of my fifteen STAR TREK novels (not counting short stories and novellas), so I'm averaging one out of every three books!

So I may be a tad biased here.

 

[USS Triumphant]

There is a mind experiment that one can easily do to show that time travel into the past that could result in events that would alter our present is impossible. However, this does not preclude:

1. Predestination paradoxes. (I personally hate the notion, but I also hate the idea of aging and dying and that's real, so I can't exclusively use my own dislike as a basis to throw this out.)

2. Branching timelines - any time an "outsider" enters a timeline it creates new branches in the Many Worlds model.

3. Brian Greene's distant parallels model - if you're unfamiliar (I don't think he actually uses that specific name for the model), the idea is that universes are like an (almost?) infinite number of soap bubbles out in the cosmos. Some are virtually identical to ours, some with minor differences, some VERY different, and so on. Some of the ones that have minor differences might be spatial - the version of you in that universe has one fewer molecule in his left buttcheek and that's all the difference in that ENTIRE universe - or temporal - that universe is identical to us but came into existence 100 years later, and so is 100 years "behind us". If this is real (and Greene's a smart guy, so I'll allow it until something can demonstrate to me that it isn't), then it wouldn't be hard to sci-fi a reason why some form of instantaneous travel (using some sort of natural quantum entanglement between the corresponding particles of the parallel universes?) then *virtual* time travel would be possible by visiting such a universe.

The simplest explanation is that time travel, the transporter, warp drive, and everything else is possible due to a science we don't yet understand.

Transtator technology.

It's very simple. Rotating west, you gain yesterdays. East, you accumulate tomorrows.

(Yes, I just watched "Time After Time" again last week. What a great movie.)

My wife and daughter just saw this for the first time - the first time I had seen it since seeing it dozens of times when I was 7 or 8 and it was in heavy rotation on HBO. Great movie. Mary Steenburgen needs a visit from DTI, though.

 

[Drone]

The simplest explanation is that time travel, the transporter, warp drive, and everything else is possible due to a science we don't yet understand.

Or, Bobby Ewing thought it all up whilst in the shower!!!