^Did you see those leaked pictures of brent Spiner wearing a green body suit and Data face paint with Chris Pine on the set of Star Trek?
I hear they're top secret and we can't mention them.

Anyway, we're derailing this thread...
^Did you see those leaked pictures of brent Spiner wearing a green body suit and Data face paint with Chris Pine on the set of Star Trek?
We vastly approaching 2387 when will we see data's return?
And will the dti show themselves to fix nero's fiasco?
Since the timeline of ST09 branched off of the Prime Timeline, that means that information from 2387 only ever travelled downtime to 2233 and 2258 -- nothing ever came uptime.
I just finished reading this book and loved it. I'm a sucker for good time travel stories and a HUGE TOS fan, so this seemed perfect for me & it was.
The only thing I had issue with--and this may be my fault, not yours--is that I still don't quite understand how the changed history in Yesteryear came to be. I can grasp why, due to how the Gardian works, Spock was not able to save his younger self, but I'm still not seeing how he first came to save his younger self. If he was killed as a child, there would have never been an adult Spock to come and save him... But that;s a minor quibble. That episode has never made any sense to me & I was hoping you would make sense of it, Christopher.
Is Admiral Delgado named after Roger? I couldn't help picturing him...
There is no "first." "Before" and "after" are just points along the timeline, so you have to step back and look at the timeline as a whole. And it's possible for a timeline to loop back on itself in a self-consistent way, for an event in the past to be caused by an event in the future. That's not a "change" to the "original" history, it's just a loop that's part of the shape of that portion of the timeline. The original history was the one that involved intervention from the future. There's nothing in the equations of physics that forbids an object from influencing its own past, so long as that influence is self-consistent -- so long as it causes the events of its established past rather than preventing them. It only becomes a problem, physically speaking, if a time travel causes events to happen differently, and that's when parallel timelines are necessary to resolve the paradox. In this case, though, you got a sort of Moebius loop effect, as I said in the text, where the discovery of a timeline where an event failed to happen was necessary to make it happen in the first place.
Is there real-life science behind this? If so, can you suggest any books on the topic?
Is Admiral Delgado named after Roger? I couldn't help picturing him...
Yes, and Anthony Ainley. That was originally just a placeholder name for the character, but I never got around to changing it. And actually the mental model I settled on for the character was Hector Elizondo.
If I interpret this correctly, the end of "Twilight" DOES overwrite the original timeline, because there is information that is passed back to the 'present' - meaning, Phlox can tell that history has changed because he sees that the parasites have disappeared from every scan he ever took. And thus, when the timeline is put back to the one we're used to, the dystopian future where Earth is destroyed, is overwritten. Am I getting warmer here?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.