Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
Scotty did NOT actually invent transwarp beaming in the Prime Universe. He only postulated the theory, though he was still a very young man when he did. He just never did figure out the way to make it work.
IMO, whenever it was actually invented (my head canon is it was invented sometime between the events of TNG "Relics" and Spock's disappearance into the black hole, sometime in the latter years of Scotty's life) Scotty had a similar reaction to his Kelvin Timeline counterpart, saying something to the effect of, "You cannae be serious! I never in a million years would've thought of space as the thing that was moving!" He would then make an offhand comment that if he had wheels he'd be a wagon.
In TNG, Guinan definitely has a perception of time where she can “feel” when it’s not “right.” That would imply, for someone like her or the Guardian of Forever, there’s a baseline norm to the flow of time within the Prime Universe that’s considered the “natural” order of events.
Also, in ENT, Daniels literally shows Archer a visual of the timeline “repairing itself” in the concluding episode of the Temporal Cold War. It would seem to indicate that, at least to Daniels (and if you take his actions as only trying to preserve the natural flow of time from the other factions), there’s a history which is considered the “right” one which was always meant to exist beyond the Temporal Cold War.
There’s also the question of whether a timeline is affected by time travel, or the time traveler is just shifting themselves and anyone “entangled” with their actions into another timeline where the events happened that way.
The Temporal Cold War would imply that all of everything can be affected by time travel.
Star Trek (2009) depicts time travel as creating a separate timeline/universe while the original continues on. I guess you could make the argument the Red Matter opened a hole not just through time but to a separate parallel universe similar to the Mirror Universe. But the destruction of the Kelvin and the appearance of the Narada are supposed to be the point of divergence that spirals the Kelvin Timeline off into a tangent.
And I think in almost every instance where time travel has been depicted, you can possibly make the case the resulting timeline may be a predestination paradox (i.e., what was supposed to happen all along) or only affects the people involved who are forced to correct it to get themselves and the people caught up in it home.
While you can certainly read it that way (and often were clearly supposed to), it seems more likely to me that when, say, Guinan or Daniel’s talk about the timeline as it’s “supposed” to be, they really just mean the timelines that they happened to be originally born into — which of course might already be the results of innumerable incursions made into periods of history before they were born. In which case, any possible really-truly-original-untouched timeline is simply unknowable and unreachable — it’s always really just a question of what historical conditions you, the traveler, want to establish as “right”. On which there will always be natural bias.
While you can certainly read it that way (and often were clearly supposed to), it seems more likely to me that when, say, Guinan or Daniel’s talk about the timeline as it’s “supposed” to be, they really just mean the timelines that they happened to be originally born into — which of course might already be the results of innumerable incursions made into periods of history before they were born. In which case, any possible really-truly-original-untouched timeline is simply unknowable and unreachable — it’s always really just a question of what historical conditions you, the traveler, want to establish as “right”. On which there will always be natural bias.
Speaking of Travellers, what about Wesley? He seems to now have an almost extra-dimensional grasp of what he also calls the Prime Timeline, and appears to think it should be a certain way. Even being able to, somehow, view timelines outside of it.
Speaking of Travellers, what about Wesley? He seems to now have an almost extra-dimensional grasp of what he also calls the Prime Timeline, and appears to think it should be a certain way. Even being able to, somehow, view timelines outside of it.
He wants his home timeline, where his mom lives, to not get destroyed. The Travelers as a whole apparently are perfectly willing to let it go; it’s personal for Wesley because it’s the one he’s from.
He wants his home timeline, where his mom lives, to not get destroyed. The Travelers as a whole apparently are perfectly willing to let it go; it’s personal for Wesley because it’s the one he’s from.
Wouldn't that imply "The Two Martys" problem exists with time travel in the Star Trek universe?
There's a fan theory about Back to the Future which goes that when Marty comes back to 1985, he doesn't really end up with his real family or with "his" Jennifer. That there are "two Martys" in the ending, and the Marty we follow ends up in a different timeline with a family he doesn't really know and not really the same people from the beginning of the movie. And "Marty 2" that he watches go back to 1955 before checking on Dr. Brown, can't be the same person, since he grew up under different circumstances, and is doomed to end up in another timeline with different people as well.
Fun Fact: This is part of the reason Eric Stoltz was fired from the movie and replaced by Michael J. Fox. Stoltz did not exactly see the movie as a science-fiction/comedy like Bob Gale and Robert Zemekis. Supposedly, Stoltz saw Marty's situation within Back to the Future as a "tragedy," where a son helps his father be a better person, but at the expense of never really being able to go home to the family he knew.
To bring it back to Star Trek, it would seem to me that if someone is worried about a specific person in a specific timeline, it could imply that the timeline branches with time travel instead of being changed, and that person's affection for the Prime Universe and the people he loves within it could confirm that. That those are the "real" people you're connected to, even if other versions exist in a changed timeline.
On a related note, this could also get into Back to the Future's "Timeline Prime/A" issue too, especially for Discovery's time jump to the 32nd century.
If each "incursion" or time travel change splinters the timeline, then it would change the future for that specific timeline. And travel within time follows the causality of the timeline as it exists within its present conditions. So when Discovery leaves the 23rd century, it traveled to the 32nd century given the conditions of the Prime Timeline at the moment they left.
But if you go by Doc Brown's explanation of how an event can "skew" the timeline into "1985A" where Biff owns everything and Hill Valley is a shithole, if you travel to the future within that changed timeline, it's the future of that present. It's the reason they had to go back to 1955 to steal the Sports Almanac instead of trying to stop it in 2015. They could no longer travel to "2015 Prime" because the future of 1985A is 2015A.
Meaning, if you go with the idea that each incursion and time travel event splinters the timeline some, the future of TNG/DS9/VOY might not be Discovery's 32nd century, since those shows would exist in some variant of the Prime Universe that's been affected by all the time travel events between when Discovery left and the 24th century. And their 32nd century might not be the same future.
Sorry about that. There seems to be something weird about this post, it’s not offering the various style options at the top (they’re greyed out): probably my bad.
Janeway: "Time travel. Since my first day on the job as a Starfleet captain I swore I'd never let myself get caught in one of these godforsaken paradoxes - the future is the past, the past is the future, it all gives me a headache."
To bring it back to Star Trek, it would seem to me that if someone is worried about a specific person in a specific timeline, it could imply that the timeline branches with time travel instead of being changed, and that person's affection for the Prime Universe and the people he loves within it could confirm that. That those are the "real" people you're connected to, even if other versions exist in a changed timeline.
I see Time itself being analogous to branching like a tree, some actions may force a smaller branch while the main branch goes on.
Some actions might see a little seed fly off and become it's own tree, related to the main tree (JJ-Verse being a prime example).
So it depends on the actions and how time has branched.
Remember, the root of our Universe starts at the "Big Bang", all Time-Lines are related at the end, but it has grown so much, that it's hard to see the beginning.
We are but one branch on the Time-Line tree, within a ginormous Time-Line Forest.
Wesley Crusher has gained the Super Power to travel between Time-Line Tree's & Branches as he sees fit.
- Haneek wasn't the super entitled snot, the way she seemed at first glance... she was just a very devout believer in her people's faith, which was prophecy-based like that of the Bajorans. She had to know that an empty planet that had been hand selected for farmers was a better option for her people... but she believed that her people were destined to find a world of sorrow, and make things better by their presence. Her insistent stance was actually born of (misguided?) altruism. That may be why she was strangely less hostile to Kira after her son got himself blown to ions... she no longer wanted anything to do with Bajor. "Screw the prophecy, my kid's dead. This 'world of sorrows' deserves what it gets."
- Given that on the surface, the Skreeans' request for immigration was ridiculous (the Federation was offering to help, and could attend to their needs infinitely better than Bajor could), the fact that it was a heated debate at all suggests that they had strong advocates. My head canon is that it was the Vedek's council. Since they had a prophecy based faith, they would naturally pay attention to another. But, the provisional government's more practical position won the day.
- I might have said this one before, but Nog's unkind actions might well have been the trigger for Haneek's kid getting killed. After that happened, he seriously re-thought his life, and decided he wanted something more meaningful than a life of petty theft and mean spirited pranks. This ultimately led to him deciding to join Starfleet.
- Haneek wasn't the super entitled snot, the way she seemed at first glance... she was just a very devout believer in her people's faith, which was prophecy-based like that of the Bajorans. She had to know that an empty planet that had been hand selected for farmers was a better option for her people... but she believed that her people were destined to find a world of sorrow, and make things better by their presence. Her insistent stance was actually born of (misguided?) altruism. That may be why she was strangely less hostile to Kira after her son got himself blown to ions... she no longer wanted anything to do with Bajor. "Screw the prophecy, my kid's dead. This 'world of sorrows' deserves what it gets."
- Given that on the surface, the Skreeans' request for immigration was ridiculous (the Federation was offering to help, and could attend to their needs infinitely better than Bajor could), the fact that it was a heated debate at all suggests that they had strong advocates. My head canon is that it was the Vedek's council. Since they had a prophecy based faith, they would naturally pay attention to another. But, the provisional government's more practical position won the day.
- I might have said this one before, but Nog's unkind actions might well have been the trigger for Haneek's kid getting killed. After that happened, he seriously re-thought his life, and decided he wanted something more meaningful than a life of petty theft and mean spirited pranks. This ultimately led to him deciding to join Starfleet.
1. That would make the Skreeans look even worse. Entitled behavior is already bad enough. But having entitled behavior because of religion? That means you're also pushing your religion and values on others in addition to being bratty. Either scenario is bad... both at once is just a whole extra level of terrible behavior.
2. I might agree with this if dialogue from the Minister made it clear that heated arguments were VERY common in the Chamber of Ministers. Like... everything seemed to be a heated argument.
3. I can see this being a starting point that led him to think also of his father, who fails as a business minded Ferengi.
That would make the Skreeans look even worse. Entitled behavior is already bad enough. But having entitled behavior because of religion? That means you're also pushing your religion and values on others in addition to being bratty. Either scenario is bad... both at once is just a whole extra level of terrible behavior.
My point is, it's not typical entitled behavior... it's the opposite. A lot of the episode plays Drailon 2 as kind of like a third-rate L-class floating dirt clod, designated to dump a bunch of unwanted refugees. It's not. It's a farmers' paradise, and if Haneek was just thinking about her own people's best interests, she'd have chosen it in a heartbeat. But, Haneek believed that it was her people's destiny to "find a world of sorrow and sow seeds of joy". In other words, she was motivated by the universal values of helping those in need. And it both frustrated her and hurt her feelings that the Bajorans didn't see it that way.
I'm not saying she was right... just that she was well-intentioned. And it maybe didn't occur to her that if someone refuses your help, your obligation to help them ends there.
My point is, it's not typical entitled behavior... it's the opposite. A lot of the episode plays Drailon 2 as kind of like a third-rate L-class floating dirt clod, designated to dump a bunch of unwanted refugees. It's not. It's a farmers' paradise, and if Haneek was just thinking about her own people's best interests, she'd have chosen it in a heartbeat. But, Haneek believed that it was her people's destiny to "find a world of sorrow and sow seeds of joy". In other words, she was motivated by the universal values of helping those in need. And it both frustrated her and hurt her feelings that the Bajorans didn't see it that way.
I'm not saying she was right... just that she was well-intentioned. And it maybe didn't occur to her that if someone refuses your help, your obligation to help them ends there.
I look at it as entitled because she was trying to push that despite the Bajorans saying no, and getting pissy about it. She was also guilt tripping Kira, which was just wrong.
I'm not saying your view on that is inaccurate... there is evidence that it can be taken that way. I just simply don't agree with it.
I look at it as entitled because she was trying to push that despite the Bajorans saying no, and getting pissy about it. She was also guilt tripping Kira, which was just wrong.
She certainly shouldn't have done that. But regardless of whether she was misguided or entitled (I think we just define the latter word differently), she paid a severe price for it in the end. No one deserves to lose a child.
But Tumek did steal the damaged ship and fired at the Bajorans... and got him and his friends killed. It was a tragedy... but he was, quite frankly, stupid.
But Tumek did steal the damaged ship and fired at the Bajorans... and got him and his friends killed. It was a tragedy... but he was, quite frankly, stupid.
Yeah... he had probably totally bought into his mother's notion that Bajor was Kentanna, and was determined to get there no matter what it took. Probably had no plan on what he was going to do once he got there.
It's not actually quite an analogy for our immigration situation, though. Seems more like if a group of refugees turned up in, say, Costa Rica (a random country with a very average GDP). The United States (an economic powerhouse) offered them sanctuary, but they wanted to settle in Costa Rica instead. Would it be immoral for the Costa Rican government to urge them to accept our offer instead?
Somewhere out in the multiverse, there’s a timeline where the Bajoran said to the Skreeans, “You know, we are trying to rebuild the planet. If you can contribute to that, okay, we’ll give you Whatitsname Valley and the Whatever islands off its shore; it’s kind of harsh, so nobody’s using them much, but there should be resources to work with.”
Fifteen productive years later, the Skreeans were a valued part of Bajoran society.
