Earliest divergence of Trek from "our" reality??

[FordSVT]

I reject the whole premise of the thread.

I reject your rejection. I spelled out the rules of the hypothetical rather clearly in my post, if you've got a problem with them, don't post.

If you're correct and any discrepancy between the Trek universe and ours can be easily explained away, then explain Chronowerks Industries.

 

[FordSVT]

The earliest change is the Big Bang itself. One can reasonably assume USS Voyager was not present in real life.

Well, that's the kind of thing I wanted to stay away from in this conversation. For one thing, we weren't there so we can't know, and for another thing it's pretty obvious that any time a person from a fictional 23rd or 24th century TV show visits the past, they really didn't. If you travelled back to the 1890s in San Fransisco I'm reasonably sure you wouldn't find the TNG crew battling shapeshifting inter-dimensional beings either.

 

[Sector 7]

You are missing the point.
[SPOILER ALERT!]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Henry Starling is Bill Gates. Chronowerks is MicroSoft.
Get it?!?!
We can't see it because the future has already changed because of Trek.
Now, prove me wrong if you dare! Ahhh-hahahahah. [laughs evilly]

 

[JM1776]

Setting aside any time-travel shenanigans as off-point ... how about Flint (from TOS' "Requiem for Methuselah") actually having been Solomon, Da Vinci, Brahms, etc.? Not buyin' that for a minute, of course, but ...

 

[erastus25]

I reject the whole premise of the thread. You'll never find any record of the murders depicted in Law & order or CSI in the real NYPD's files, that doesn't mean they're set in an alternate universe.

The nuclear platform? Hushed up. The Eugenics Wars? Greg Cox handled that to my satisfaction. Ad infinitum.

So how would you explain the existence of fictional Trek in a universe where it really happened?

(And also the existence of a 24th-century Starfleet Chief of Staff named Gene Roddenberry. Look it up!)

When did Star Trek self-reference itself as a fictional show??? I have no recollection of that!

And why couldn't a Gene Roddenberry be Starfleet Chief of Staff? No crazier than the Miles O'Brien coincidence.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The big one would be the Eugenics Wars. Didn't happen.

 

[FordSVT]

I reject the whole premise of the thread. You'll never find any record of the murders depicted in Law & order or CSI in the real NYPD's files, that doesn't mean they're set in an alternate universe.

The nuclear platform? Hushed up. The Eugenics Wars? Greg Cox handled that to my satisfaction. Ad infinitum.

So how would you explain the existence of fictional Trek in a universe where it really happened?

(And also the existence of a 24th-century Starfleet Chief of Staff named Gene Roddenberry. Look it up!)

When did Star Trek self-reference itself as a fictional show??? I have no recollection of that!

They didn't, it was an example of something MarianLH can't possibly explain away with her premise. If our reality is the exact same as the reality of Trek and the discrepancies can be explained away with government cover-ups, etc., then that also means the Trek franchise must have existed in the Trek universe as well, which would make absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Sean_McCormick]

Probably the fact, that in the Star Trek universe the English obviously won the 100 years war and so at least parts of France are inhabited by people speaking british english (and serving the royal navy in the napoleonic era).

 

[Red Ranger]

Setting aside any time-travel shenanigans as off-point ... how about Flint (from TOS' "Requiem for Methuselah") actually having been Solomon, Da Vinci, Brahms, etc.? Not buyin' that for a minute, of course, but ...

I think JM may be the winner. Flint being all those people, I always liked that idea. So I think this is your earliest divergence of "our" reality from the ST reality. I was going to say the TNG ep Time's Arrow, where Data and company wind up in the 19th century, but no, Flint had been around since I think 3000 B.C. or thereabouts.

Having said that, here are a couple of my own ideas of when this divergence may have happened.

First, depending on when Apollo and his associates from Who Mourns For Adonais? first made contact with ancient Earth, their existence and interaction with our ancestors could be the earliest point of divergence.

Here is another possibility of when the realities diverged, but the timeline is a little fuzzy. You'll recall the enigmatic race known as the Preservers from The Paradise Syndrome, who were responsible for transplanting an Indian tribe from Earth to another planet? We don't know how far back they began transplanting people from Earth to other worlds, but I think it went back thousands of years. And it's hinted they had something to do with the Vulcan/Romulan separation.

Red Ranger

 

[Red Ranger]

So how would you explain the existence of fictional Trek in a universe where it really happened?

(And also the existence of a 24th-century Starfleet Chief of Staff named Gene Roddenberry. Look it up!)

When did Star Trek self-reference itself as a fictional show??? I have no recollection of that!

They didn't, it was an example of something MarianLH can't possibly explain away with her premise. If our reality is the exact same as the reality of Trek and the discrepancies can be explained away with government cover-ups, etc., then that also means the Trek franchise must have existed in the Trek universe as well, which would make absolutely no sense at all.

Oh, that's easy. It's called Galaxy Quest in the ST universe! -- RR

 

[MarianLH]

They didn't, it was an example of something MarianLH can't possibly explain away with her premise.

On the contrary, it fails the same litmus test I mentioned before. The Law & Order TV show doesn't exist in the Law & Order TV show. Therefore, by your premise, Law & Order--and every other TV drama ever--can't take place in our reality and must be set in an alternate universe.

Which they aren't. Beyond the fact that they're all works of fiction, anyway. Why should Star Trek not be granted the same suspension of disbelief as every other TV show?


Marian

 

[STIntergalactic]

This may be a little off topic...but as for trek existing in the trek universe...

A while ago I wrote a story in which some point in Trek's future, somebody discovers that they all belong to a fictional universe. They tried to learn as much about our world as they could by reviewing everything that happened to their universe. It was very surreal.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The Law & Order TV show doesn't exist in the Law & Order TV show. Therefore, by your premise, Law & Order--and every other TV drama ever--can't take place in our reality and must be set in an alternate universe.

Which they aren't. Beyond the fact that they're all works of fiction, anyway.

Stop right there. The mere fact that something *is* a work of fiction is, by definition, proof that the thing is set in an alternate universe. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be fiction, it would be fact.

 

[Red Ranger]

Regarding this debate as to whether a work of fiction exists in it own separate universe, how about this as a solution: Every work of fiction is set in its own unique universe, unless, like in ST and L&O, there are several shows set within that milieu and the characters cross over, thus meaning they exist in that particular universe.

So in L&O, there is no L&O franchise, but there is a ST franchise, as well as every other work of fiction ever made. And in the ST world, there is no ST franchise, but an L&O and every other work of fiction not related to ST.

To cite just one example, we know the works of Isaac Asimov, hard sf, exist in TNG as they refer to the positronic brain concept he articulated in his robot novels and short stories.

How does that work for you all?

Red Ranger

 

[Sector 7]

To paraphrase Janeway... "all these time paradoxes give me a headache".

 

[FordSVT]

Regarding this debate as to whether a work of fiction exists in it own separate universe, how about this as a solution: Every work of fiction is set in its own unique universe, unless, like in ST and L&O, there are several shows set within that milieu and the characters cross over, thus meaning they exist in that particular universe.

So in L&O, there is no L&O franchise, but there is a ST franchise, as well as every other work of fiction ever made. And in the ST world, there is no ST franchise, but an L&O and every other work of fiction not related to ST.

To cite just one example, we know the works of Isaac Asimov, hard sf, exist in TNG as they refer to the positronic brain concept he articulated in his robot novels and short stories.

How does that work for you all?

Red Ranger

I agree.

And let's remember this is a perfectly silly conversation in the first place, I didn't intend for anyone to get nasty about it.

 

[Red Ranger]

Regarding this debate as to whether a work of fiction exists in it own separate universe, how about this as a solution: Every work of fiction is set in its own unique universe, unless, like in ST and L&O, there are several shows set within that milieu and the characters cross over, thus meaning they exist in that particular universe.

So in L&O, there is no L&O franchise, but there is a ST franchise, as well as every other work of fiction ever made. And in the ST world, there is no ST franchise, but an L&O and every other work of fiction not related to ST.

To cite just one example, we know the works of Isaac Asimov, hard sf, exist in TNG as they refer to the positronic brain concept he articulated in his robot novels and short stories.

How does that work for you all?

Red Ranger

I agree.

And let's remember this is a perfectly silly conversation in the first place, I didn't intend for anyone to get nasty about it.

True. But it brings up another off-topic idea that has occured to me. For all practical purposes, we all comprise separate universes, our internal universe and the external universe we all live in. For example, my universe consists of me as the focal point of consciousness, while every thing else is outside my consciousness and part of the larger external universe.

And just to use your name, FordSVT, you comprise your own internal universe which consists of your own consciousness and the external universe around you, including this screen that I'm typing on.

And so on and so on and so on.

And maybe somewhere our lives are part of some fictional work that -- I hope not, at least -- some geek in that other universe has a BBS, devoted to our individual fictional lives where they dissect everything about us!
Anyone else confused now?

Red Ranger

 

[FordSVT]

^Yup, I'm just the dream of a sentient dinosaur myself.

 

[Red Ranger]

^Yup, I'm just the dream of a sentient dinosaur myself.

In my case, I'm really a golden butterfly dreaming I'm a man! -- RR

 

[pookha]

I reject the whole premise of the thread. You'll never find any record of the murders depicted in Law & order or CSI in the real NYPD's files, that doesn't mean they're set in an alternate universe.

The nuclear platform? Hushed up. The Eugenics Wars? Greg Cox handled that to my satisfaction. Ad infinitum.


Marian

so how do you handle the far more advanced at this time period space program.

oh and our voyager program stopped at two.

the realities are very different and i dont buy the cox explanation for the eugenics wars either.