General Trek Questions and Observations
- Thread starter The Old Mixer
- Start date
Same for me.
Mileage will vary, and no doubt many do. But, I think that speaks to the stories and people's connections to the characters, not the use of time travel.
Time travel to the past, yes.
Time travel to the future is not only possible but has already happened on a tiny, tiny scale.
Still, I love time travel episodes. Year of Hell and All Good Things... are my two favorite Star Trek episodes of all-time.
A more realistic view of time travel:
I go back 100 or so years. I bump into a person on the street. The spermatozoa in his testicles are subtly shifted by the impact. When he makes love to his wife that night, a different sperm wins the race. A different child is born, a different life is lived. That life influences other lives, and it spirals outward over time, spreading exponentially: a few tiny changes grow to a hundred, a million, a trillion, and the impact grows huge by sheer multiplicity. By the time a century has passed, the world could be radically different. What if I unintentionally erased Steve Jobs? Or Kate Mulgrew? Or Donald Trump? Or all three?
I go back 100 or so years. I bump into a person on the street. The spermatozoa in his testicles are subtly shifted by the impact. When he makes love to his wife that night, a different sperm wins the race. A different child is born, a different life is lived. That life influences other lives, and it spirals outward over time, spreading exponentially: a few tiny changes grow to a hundred, a million, a trillion, and the impact grows huge by sheer multiplicity. By the time a century has passed, the world could be radically different. What if I unintentionally erased Steve Jobs? Or Kate Mulgrew? Or Donald Trump? Or all three?
All of us, ever day, all the time.
Still, I love time travel episodes. Year of Hell and All Good Things... are my two favorite Star Trek episodes of all-time.
Time travel is a way to do terrible things to the characters and not have them stick. It's a cheat. The Year of Hell would have been far better if they had to come out of it and deal with the issues it created.
You sold me, get busy.
Something I use in my writing, fantasy of SF is this. Don't tell me how wrong I am, it is my rule for me.
Laws of the Conservation of Time
These laws apply no matter the method used to travel time, a technological device or magical artifact. In short time travel is a Bad Thing. This will not end well.
- Time is not a singular flow.
- Energy required to change future events decreases logarithmically as the factor of time increases. If X change requires Y power for +t time, then X change requires y/10 power for +t2.
- Energy required to change past events increases logarithmically as the factor of time increases. If X change requires Y power for -t time, then X change requires y10 power for -t2.
- Time Travel never works like you think it will. The past is immutable. If you think you have changed the past, you have simply side slipped into a parallel universe. Past travel is highly likely to land you permanently away from home.
- Future travel is a drug trip. The future is so mutable that nothing that happens can be counted on. By the very act of looking at a possible future you could prevent it happening.
Last edited:
Set the time machine for Sept. 14, 1945.
Actually, make it Dec. 6, 1941. I'll send Pearl Harbor a warning while I'm back there.
They are going to treat that warning any different than the half dozen they had?
That's a good GM.
If nothing else, I'll know then that the conspiracy theorists are right.
This is why time travel is a bit mind-bending. Anything you do could have a really massive consequence.
I like Trials and Tribble-ations - it's silly, it's a tribute to TOS and it doesn't feel like anything they did changed anything that happened in The Trouble With Tribbles.
The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of a group of beings is the latest person who is the ancestor of all of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor
The identical ancetors point is the most recent time the past when every living member0rof a species either has no descendants down to the present or else is one of the ancestors of every living member of their species. It is the point in tieme where wveryone either has no descendants in the present or is else is one o fthe common ancestors of everyone living in the present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ancestors_point
So if your change to the past cause even one person to be born who otherwise wouldn't be born, and that person's descendants don't die out but continue as long as the humans species, that person willbecome one of the ancestors of every single human being alive a few thousand years later. And you if you prevent a single person from repoducing in the past who otherwise would have descendants down to the end of the human race, that persoon would have eventually become the ancestor of all living humans.
So a tiime travellor who changes the fate of a few past humans for better or for worse will eventually replace all the living humans thousands of years in the future with another,and totally different set of humans living at that future era, and son on for all the countless later millennia the human species may survive in.
What happens if you breath air ina nd out a few times in the past, and leave future airborne germs in the past and take past germs into the future?
Remember, the lifeforms which most influence how long people live are germs. And you have just changed the evolution of germs from what it would otherwise have been. Thus you will prevent the evolution of some deadly diseases and enable the evolution of other deadly diseas, changing who will live or die of disease before repoducing, and thus eventually replacing the entire fur ture population of the human race.
And if scanners show that the life on a planet is compatable wit,h and can be affected by, bacteria and viriuses from Earth, and Earth people beam down on that planet without wearing enviromental suits, and breath the air of that planet, they will change which species of intelligent beings might evolve on that planet millions of years in the future.
STNG - 'All Good Things...'
Man, I'm still having a hard time liking Discovery. I think the lack of stand alone episodes really hurts character development. So we get tidbits here and there. (Take all the less focused on characters of previous Treks and throw them into one series). And less episodes per season doesn't help either.
What would help is if I wasn't so repulsed by Burnham's need to be right all the time, and insistence on risky behaviour because it worked the last time.
Lastly, please actors: stop mumbling and whispering.
Gotta be hard for the writers though. They must check certain Trek boxes while attempting to say something unique. Can't please everybody.
What would help is if I wasn't so repulsed by Burnham's need to be right all the time, and insistence on risky behaviour because it worked the last time.
Lastly, please actors: stop mumbling and whispering.
Gotta be hard for the writers though. They must check certain Trek boxes while attempting to say something unique. Can't please everybody.
How is that different to any other Captain in any other Star Trek show?
Also, FYI, the whispering thing is so 2021. This year if you want to criticise Discovery properly, it is better form to spuriously claim that entire episodes are devoted to 'support group' style scenes.
Listening to Garrett Wang and Robert Duncan McNeil's podcast makes me realize how often Janeway put the crew in jeopardy.
The show has too much telling and not enough showing. Reasons for this have been discussed ad nauseam.How is that different to any other Captain in any other Star Trek show?
Also, FYI, the whispering thing is so 2021. This year if you want to criticise Discovery properly, it is better form to spuriously claim that entire episodes are devoted to 'support group' style scenes.
It's not.
Seems more pronounced with her. Or maybe I'm just older and this character trait annoys me more?
What does that have to do with it? Burnham always thinks she's right. Invariably, Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer are the same. Likewise risky situations. Each puts their own respective crews through the ringer when it comes to accomplishing a mission. There are no doubt-filled Captains who are risk-averse in Star Trek. Captains tend to be absolute maniacs.
I think that's the one. Not liking Burnham is fine by me, she's hardly my favourite. I just don't think it's fair to present her taking risks as a legitimate complaint when other Captains are just as guilty of it.
Similar threads
- Locked
