Timelines, reality,star trek, canon, and the Truth!

[CommanderRaytas]

I was thinking more in the line of punk or emo... I don't know, Nero strikes me as sort of a Fall Out Boy fan.

 

[3D Master]

Not another one of those 'I know how Star Trek Time Travel is suppose to work, and that is not it BS arguments.'.

Its FAKE SCIENCE!

Fake science that still worked a certain way in every time travel story in all of Star Trek - which means we know how it works in Star Trek - until now, or in other words, the movie has it wrong.

No. Star Trek time travel did NOT work "a certain way in every time travel story". Star Trek was no more consistent with time travel methodology than it was with warp speed, how many centuries into the future from the 20th century (not until the movies)--the inconsistencies and contradictions are too numerous to list here. You can criticize the movie for any number of things (it's hardly flawless) but to criticize it for lacking a consistency that has never been a part of Star Trek is asinine (as is your not so subtle implication that anyone who likes the movie "lacks a brain").

Oh, really? Name all those inconsistencies then, because you'll find none.

 

[Shaper079]

Fake science that still worked a certain way in every time travel story in all of Star Trek - which means we know how it works in Star Trek - until now, or in other words, the movie has it wrong.

No. Star Trek time travel did NOT work "a certain way in every time travel story". Star Trek was no more consistent with time travel methodology than it was with warp speed, how many centuries into the future from the 20th century (not until the movies)--the inconsistencies and contradictions are too numerous to list here. You can criticize the movie for any number of things (it's hardly flawless) but to criticize it for lacking a consistency that has never been a part of Star Trek is asinine (as is your not so subtle implication that anyone who likes the movie "lacks a brain").

Oh, really? Name all those inconsistencies then, because you'll find none.

Inconsistency. In Time's Arrow Data's head was already in the cave under SF. In First Contact the Borg had not assimilated earth before they went back.

 

[3D Master]

"Red matter" is just utterly idiotic.

In fact, weren't people here complaining about the particle of the week in Voyager. I know I was one of them. "red matter" is the rather perfect example of what I've been saying, that this movie took everything good about Star Trek and tossed it out the window, and that took everything bad and made it worse. At least when Voyager pulled another particle out of their asses, they at least put some effort in creating scientifically sounding name, and its properties had at least some basis in either science or pre-existing ST science.

But "red matter"!?!?!??

Yeah, real scientist would never talk about something called dark matter, for example! Or go out of their way and christen serious quantum properties of elementary particles with silly monikers like color or flavor!

Oh, wait...

Dark Matter is 1. descriptive (as in it does not radiate and thus no visible except by indirect detection), 2. transformed into a whole new type of matter that happens to be dark and have special properties (it now being damn difficult to tell whether you mean all dark matter or just special kind). 3. the special kind is bullshit of the highest order, and a clear example of scientific cognitive dissonance.

The color force, aka the strong nuclear force, is a force that keeps quarks together inside atoms. It however have nothing to do with actual color, nor does it give a material a color, nor does a material that has a color given the name of a color. It is idiotic.

I agree time travel in Star Trek reacted differently each time depending on the method. Example: Time's Arrow the effects preceded the cause as opposed to First Contact where the effects were not seen until after the cause.

Inconsistency. In Time's Arrow Data's head was already in the cave under SF. In First Contact the Borg had not assimilated earth before they went back.

Nope, it acted completely the same. Time travel was had, things were done in past, period. When exactly the effects were seen has nothing to do with the time travel mechanics, but when and where the time travel was done and whether or not somebody was there to see the actual time travel occurring and whether or not any changes were made with the time travel.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Oh, really? Name all those inconsistencies then, because you'll find none.

Go look on Memory Alpha. Really, you think someone has all those inconsistencies memorized? Of course not.

 

[Shaper079]

Inconsistency. In Time's Arrow Data's head was already in the cave under SF. In First Contact the Borg had not assimilated earth before they went back.

Nope, it acted completely the same. Time travel was had, things were done in past, period. When exactly the effects were seen has nothing to do with the time travel mechanics, but when and where the time travel was done and whether or not somebody was there to see the actual time travel occurring and whether or not any changes were made with the time travel.[/QUOTE]


[FONT=Times New Roman]I disagree consistent would have been Data’s head appearing the instant he entered the time portal much as the earth “changed” to a Borg planet as the Enterprise was pursuing. Data’s head was there as a result of future time travel if that were a constant then the Earth would have never become a Borg planet because as a result of future time travel the Borg would be defeated. If the Time’s Arrow method holds true the Enterprise D crew was always at First Contact, if they were always there then the planet was never Borg in the 24th century. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Since in the Star Trek multiverse when know it is possible to travel through time, alternate realities or both, I have no problem with the inconsistencies. [/FONT]

 

[iguana_tonante]

Yeah, real scientist would never talk about something called dark matter, for example! Or go out of their way and christen serious quantum properties of elementary particles with silly monikers like color or flavor!

Oh, wait...

Dark Matter is 1. descriptive (as in it does not radiate and thus no visible except by indirect detection), 2. transformed into a whole new type of matter that happens to be dark and have special properties (it now being damn difficult to tell whether you mean all dark matter or just special kind). 3. the special kind is bullshit of the highest order, and a clear example of scientific cognitive dissonance.

The color force, aka the strong nuclear force, is a force that keeps quarks together inside atoms. It however have nothing to do with actual color, nor does it give a material a color, nor does a material that has a color given the name of a color. It is idiotic.

Thank you very much, Master Obvious, I think I know what dark matter and color force are.

I was pointing out that plain terms are not uncommon nor unprecedented in actual physics.

Especially since quark matter is theorized as a state of matter which is slightly below the limit of collapsing into a black hole.

 

[3D Master]

Inconsistency. In Time's Arrow Data's head was already in the cave under SF. In First Contact the Borg had not assimilated earth before they went back.

Nope, it acted completely the same. Time travel was had, things were done in past, period. When exactly the effects were seen has nothing to do with the time travel mechanics, but when and where the time travel was done and whether or not somebody was there to see the actual time travel occurring and whether or not any changes were made with the time travel.

[FONT=Times New Roman]I disagree consistent would have been Data’s head appearing the instant he entered the time portal much as the earth “changed” to a Borg planet as the Enterprise was pursuing. Data’s head was there as a result of future time travel if that were a constant then the Earth would have never become a Borg planet because as a result of future time travel the Borg would be defeated. If the Time’s Arrow method holds true the Enterprise D crew was always at First Contact, if they were always there then the planet was never Borg in the 24th century. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Since in the Star Trek multiverse when know it is possible to travel through time, alternate realities or both, I have no problem with the inconsistencies. [/FONT]

Data's head did not "appear". Data's head simply lay there for four hundred years. It's all about the scale, the people effected and when they were effected. Time's Arrow was a pre-destination paradox, because if Time's Arrow hadn't happened, Guinan would not have known of Picard, and thus wouldn't have gone to find him after the Borg assimilated the El-Aurians, thus wouldn't have told him to go back in the past himself, etc.

When the Borg did their time travel, it was obviously not a pre-destination paradox, therefor the timeline got changed, and visibly so.

These are not inconsistancies, they're simply consequences of what happened.

 

[Ovation]

Fake science that still worked a certain way in every time travel story in all of Star Trek - which means we know how it works in Star Trek - until now, or in other words, the movie has it wrong.

No. Star Trek time travel did NOT work "a certain way in every time travel story". Star Trek was no more consistent with time travel methodology than it was with warp speed, how many centuries into the future from the 20th century (not until the movies)--the inconsistencies and contradictions are too numerous to list here. You can criticize the movie for any number of things (it's hardly flawless) but to criticize it for lacking a consistency that has never been a part of Star Trek is asinine (as is your not so subtle implication that anyone who likes the movie "lacks a brain").

Oh, really? Name all those inconsistencies then, because you'll find none.

A few that I can think of off the top of my head--when they find the Botany Bay, Khan is told he is "two hundred years" in the future. That puts him in the 22nd century, not the 23rd (possibly early 23rd if we allow for the usual 10-20 year "slack" people include in their "hundred years" comments--but certainly not in the mid 2260s). When they meet Trelane, they state they are 900 light-years from Earth, yet Trelane says he's looked across space and copied what he saw in his castle. Given the timeframe for all those artefacts, at the latest, he was observing the 19th century. That would put the Enterprise in the 28th century.

Spock tells someone (Droxine or Zarabeth--can't remember which) that Vulcan is several thousand light-years away. No matter which "warp scale" you use, that is still a lot farther than the TOS Enterprise can travel in the short time since they were at Vulcan in Amok Time.

I can't be bothered to find others at the moment (though I'm sure a number of other people here more well versed than I in the minutiae of Trek can provide examples), but since you said I'd find "none"--three should be more than sufficient to prove you are incorrect.

(oh, and "fanon" rationalizations do NOT count as reasons why these are not contradictory, so don't bother with any of those)

 

[Movieguy12]

for those of you who are so obssesed with hating on this movie let me ask you something if you dont mind.

1.would you please give 10 good, sane, specific reasons why you do not like this movie? ive read you hated it but you havnt given any reasons so list why you dont like it.

2. you voice your opionon wich is fine but your opinon is ridiculous you said "that your not allows to voice yourself so we will never reach the star trek world" blah blah blah. the whole star trek world was based on humans realizing that there is more to life than busting your ass everyday working NOT for money (wich is why we work today) but to better themselves. (witch is not what we do in our world) so if thats whats star trek is based on then why dont you better yourself and stop ranting and being a critic (not that you cant voice yourself just so aggresivly) but why dont you go back to school get a degree go to hollywood and be a director make us fans a new star trek movie and see what plp like you have to say! stop crying about things and better yourslef and do something about it. after all the humans in star trek better there selfs you however do not do anything but cause annoyance.

 

[3D Master]

No. Star Trek time travel did NOT work "a certain way in every time travel story". Star Trek was no more consistent with time travel methodology than it was with warp speed, how many centuries into the future from the 20th century (not until the movies)--the inconsistencies and contradictions are too numerous to list here. You can criticize the movie for any number of things (it's hardly flawless) but to criticize it for lacking a consistency that has never been a part of Star Trek is asinine (as is your not so subtle implication that anyone who likes the movie "lacks a brain").

Oh, really? Name all those inconsistencies then, because you'll find none.

A few that I can think of off the top of my head--when they find the Botany Bay, Khan is told he is "two hundred years" in the future. That puts him in the 22nd century, not the 23rd (possibly early 23rd if we allow for the usual 10-20 year "slack" people include in their "hundred years" comments--but certainly not in the mid 2260s). When they meet Trelane, they state they are 900 light-years from Earth, yet Trelane says he's looked across space and copied what he saw in his castle. Given the timeframe for all those artefacts, at the latest, he was observing the 19th century. That would put the Enterprise in the 28th century.

Spock tells someone (Droxine or Zarabeth--can't remember which) that Vulcan is several thousand light-years away. No matter which "warp scale" you use, that is still a lot farther than the TOS Enterprise can travel in the short time since they were at Vulcan in Amok Time.

I can't be bothered to find others at the moment (though I'm sure a number of other people here more well versed than I in the minutiae of Trek can provide examples), but since you said I'd find "none"--three should be more than sufficient to prove you are incorrect.

(oh, and "fanon" rationalizations do NOT count as reasons why these are not contradictory, so don't bother with any of those)

:sighs:

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with time travel.

Do keep up.

 

[anothertrekfan]

There really is no point arguing with this guy. His mind is made up.

 

[Movieguy12]

ok heres what we will do guys. we are going to either a. get a weijee board (sorry dont know how to spell ) or b. hold a sayonce (wow again cant spell) and were going to contact the late great gene roddenberry and ask him to settle all this and he will pull something out of his ass and that will be the fact truth and there will be no more arguing or crying

NO DISSRESPECT OR OFFENCE TO GENE!

 

[Ovation]

Originally Posted by Ovation
No. Star Trek time travel did NOT work "a certain way in every time travel story". Star Trek was no more consistent with time travel methodology than it was with warp speed, how many centuries into the future from the 20th century (not until the movies)--the inconsistencies and contradictions are too numerous to list here. You can criticize the movie for any number of things (it's hardly flawless) but to criticize it for lacking a consistency that has never been a part of Star Trek is asinine (as is your not so subtle implication that anyone who likes the movie "lacks a brain").

Oh, really? Name all those inconsistencies then, because you'll find none.

A few that I can think of off the top of my head--when they find the Botany Bay, Khan is told he is "two hundred years" in the future. That puts him in the 22nd century, not the 23rd (possibly early 23rd if we allow for the usual 10-20 year "slack" people include in their "hundred years" comments--but certainly not in the mid 2260s). When they meet Trelane, they state they are 900 light-years from Earth, yet Trelane says he's looked across space and copied what he saw in his castle. Given the timeframe for all those artefacts, at the latest, he was observing the 19th century. That would put the Enterprise in the 28th century.

Spock tells someone (Droxine or Zarabeth--can't remember which) that Vulcan is several thousand light-years away. No matter which "warp scale" you use, that is still a lot farther than the TOS Enterprise can travel in the short time since they were at Vulcan in Amok Time.

I can't be bothered to find others at the moment (though I'm sure a number of other people here more well versed than I in the minutiae of Trek can provide examples), but since you said I'd find "none"--three should be more than sufficient to prove you are incorrect.

(oh, and "fanon" rationalizations do NOT count as reasons why these are not contradictory, so don't bother with any of those)

:sighs:

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with time travel.

Do keep up.

Get bent. I made a general statement about inconsistency in Trek. You responded I'd find "none" (no inconsistencies). I give you three and your reply is they don't have anything to do with time travel? You didn't ask for "time travel" inconsistencies specifically. But fine:

here's a link to several different forms of time travel employed in Trek (and elsewhere). They are inconsistent.

Enjoy.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

a. get a weijee board (sorry dont know how to spell )

Ouija board (for next time).

 

[Islander]

ok heres what we will do guys. we are going to either a. get a weijee board (sorry dont know how to spell ) or b. hold a sayonce (wow again cant spell) and were going to contact the late great gene roddenberry and ask him to settle all this and he will pull something out of his ass and that will be the fact truth and there will be no more arguing or crying

NO DISSRESPECT OR OFFENCE TO GENE!

Haummmmmm.... Calling the Spirit of Gene Roddenberry, can you here us?
{Gene} Yes, I can
How do you do, sir
{Gene} I'm cold
Why is that?
{Gene} Cuz I'm in FREAKING SPACE YOU IDIOT! LEAVE ME ALONE
[Dial tone sound]

 

[Islander]

a. get a weijee board (sorry dont know how to spell )

Ouija board (for next time).

And it's "Séance" (french for session).

 

[Movieguy12]

a. get a weijee board (sorry dont know how to spell )

Ouija board (for next time).

And it's "Séance" (french for session).

thanks guys unfortuanlty im too lazy to click a few buttons on my keyboard or mouse :/ i guess with plp like me we will never reach the star trek world huh? lol....hehehehe muahaha resistance is futile

 

[JBElliott]

Spock' and Nero' when back and to the left. That is, they went back in time and to an adjacent parallel universe (just the kind of parallel universe we saw in "Parallels" and just like the parallel universe where Spock has a goatee). Then Ent/TOS/TNG/DS9/Voy universe is alive and well, but down one Spock, one Nero and all of Romulus. Abrams can say what he want's about altered time lines and so on, but he's wrong. In the end it's the fans that write the history.

 

[anothertrekfan]

Spock' and Nero' when back and to the left. That is, they went back in time and to an adjacent parallel universe (just the kind of parallel universe we saw in "Parallels" and just like the parallel universe where Spock has a goatee). Then Ent/TOS/TNG/DS9/Voy universe is alive and well, but down one Spock, one Nero and all of Romulus. Abrams can say what he want's about altered time lines and so on, but he's wrong. In the end it's the fans that write the history.

This is the best explanation to give to please those who disagree. Why can't everyone accept this?