How can the original timeline still exist?

[Shazam!]

I'm sure Christopher L. Bennett once said he had an idea of how to reconcile these different attitudes to time travel within Trek, which I'd love to hear. But in all honesty, I think it was a mistake to include time travel in XI in the first place, it just complicates things so much.

Expect someone to say that it isn't complicated at all and then imply that you're a little bit dim if you think it is.

For the record though, I agree.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If I kill my grandfather, I'll never be born.

Then obviously you didn't kill your grandfather. Just as obviously, if you TRIED (or will try) to kill your grandfather, you failed to do so for some reason. Or possibly you killed your grandfather a few years after you were born and you turned out to be the mysterious cab driver who ran him over yesterday (expect a phone call in the morning).

It's sort of like the predestination angle from the Matrix. You didn't travel into the past to kill your grandfather; you've already killed him. You traveled into the past to find out WHY you killed him.

the causalities aren't simply each other's cause and effect, they erase each other in turns.

No they don't erase each other. Think about this. If you are going to travel back in time ten years from now and arrive fifty years ago, then your having time traveled is already part of history. So anything that happens in your timeline--even before you were born--is influenced by your actions in time travel.

The cause (your time machine) precedes its effects (your birth).

So you're saying that one can travel back in time, but can't alter the timeline, based on the fact that from the present POV there are no changes visible? That sounds like predestination to me.

Pretty much.

And I say timeloops are a logical impossibility.

They're entirely possible. They're just not very plausible.

 

[Nightfall to-Ennien]

What I don't quite understand is why people seem to think time travel working one way precludes it from also working another way. What about being able to move along one distinct timeline precludes the ability to also travel from one timeline to another? Both possibilities have appeared in the franchise, have they not?

 

[Nerys Myk]

The scenarios in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and ST XI are totally incompatible. The writers of the new movie really need to watch these old episodes more closely.

They decided to go with the "Parallels" aproach instead of "Yesterday's Enterprise."

 

[EJA]

The general idea in Trek seems to be that changing an established event in the past will restructure that existing timeline....or it was until the latest movie. And I'm really not sure what to think about VOY's "Endgame."

 

[EJA]

The scenarios in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and ST XI are totally incompatible. The writers of the new movie really need to watch these old episodes more closely.

They decided to go with the "Parallels" aproach instead of "Yesterday's Enterprise."

But the "Parallels" approach doesn't really fit either when you think about it. All those alternate realities glimpsed in that particular episode were simply due to various things being played out in different ways in each reality, different choices being made. Nothing to do with time travel altering history.

History has been altered before in Trek, in all sorts of ways. Just look at First Contact and ENT. Most of the time these changes have been reset, sometimes not. But in all those instances when history was changed, the timeline never split into different, coexisting versions. It stayed singular.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The scenarios in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and ST XI are totally incompatible. The writers of the new movie really need to watch these old episodes more closely.

They decided to go with the "Parallels" aproach instead of "Yesterday's Enterprise."

But the "Parallels" approach doesn't really fit either when you think about it. All those alternate realities glimpsed in that particular episode were simply due to various things being played out in different ways in each reality, different choices being made. Nothing to do with time travel altering history.

History has been altered before in Trek, in all sorts of ways. Just look at First Contact and ENT. Most of the time these changes have been reset, sometimes not. But in all those instances when history was changed, the timeline never split into different, coexisting versions. It stayed singular.

Could be everytime you reset history you've recreated a new timeline. The timelines Kirk or Sisko left may not be the same one they returned to. Did Edith die while on a date with her man? Or did she die going to the movies alone? Did Bell die in the original timeline? Or did Sisko cause hios death and "fate" stepped in to make things right. Was it the real Bell pictured in the history books or Sisko before the timeline was "reset"?

 

[Prologic9]

What I don't quite understand is why people seem to think time travel working one way precludes it from also working another way. What about being able to move along one distinct timeline precludes the ability to also travel from one timeline to another? Both possibilities have appeared in the franchise, have they not?

Because the whole point of the quantum theory it's based on is that you can't alter your actual past. It doesn't exist along side Trek's previous time travel stories, it supplants them.

 

[EJA]

They decided to go with the "Parallels" aproach instead of "Yesterday's Enterprise."

But the "Parallels" approach doesn't really fit either when you think about it. All those alternate realities glimpsed in that particular episode were simply due to various things being played out in different ways in each reality, different choices being made. Nothing to do with time travel altering history.

History has been altered before in Trek, in all sorts of ways. Just look at First Contact and ENT. Most of the time these changes have been reset, sometimes not. But in all those instances when history was changed, the timeline never split into different, coexisting versions. It stayed singular.

Could be everytime you reset history you've recreated a new timeline. The timelines Kirk or Sisko left may not be the same one they returned to. Did Edith die while on a date with her man? Or did she die going to the movies alone? Did Bell die in the original timeline? Or did Sisko cause hios death and "fate" stepped in to make things right. Was it the real Bell pictured in the history books or Sisko before the timeline was "reset"?

And in all those stories it was just one timeline being reworked.

 

[Nerys Myk]

But the "Parallels" approach doesn't really fit either when you think about it. All those alternate realities glimpsed in that particular episode were simply due to various things being played out in different ways in each reality, different choices being made. Nothing to do with time travel altering history.

History has been altered before in Trek, in all sorts of ways. Just look at First Contact and ENT. Most of the time these changes have been reset, sometimes not. But in all those instances when history was changed, the timeline never split into different, coexisting versions. It stayed singular.

Could be everytime you reset history you've recreated a new timeline. The timelines Kirk or Sisko left may not be the same one they returned to. Did Edith die while on a date with her man? Or did she die going to the movies alone? Did Bell die in the original timeline? Or did Sisko cause hios death and "fate" stepped in to make things right. Was it the real Bell pictured in the history books or Sisko before the timeline was "reset"?

And in all those stories it was just one timeline being reworked.

Or was it split? We don't know because he universe Kirk returns to is very much like the one he left.

I see there are three options:

The God Option:

Those in charge have said the Prime Universe still exists, so it has to be true because they are "God".

The Science Option:

New data (ST09) show that parallel universes that diverge from a single point in time co-exist and no resetting or overwriting in needed in these cases. Previous theories should be disregarded.

The Child Option

lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal

 

[Wowbagger]

I maintain, against all opinions, that the best explanation of the new movie is that there was no divergence from original history of any kind -- that Star Trek 2009 is, literally, the correct and proper history of the Prime universe, existing without contradiction alongside the rest of the Primeverse. (The destruction of Vulcan does not contradict nearly as much canon as people seem to assume it does.)

However, if someone insists that this movie is somehow divergent from traditional Trek-history and demands that I account for it under a Trek theory of time travel, I'm gonna go with the Doctor: "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff." (link)

Really, folks. If you go back and look at the insane contradictions that have already plagued Trek's internal time travel rules, this rather unprecedented "new timeline" interpretation is child's play compared to messes like "The City on the Edge of Forever."

 

[Prologic9]

^^I'm firmly in the camp that thinks the 'true' history of Trek was ended after the events of ST: First Contact. The new movie reinforces this nicely actually.

The Ent-E's effect on history radically altered and increased the early development of warp travel, the result of which is Star Trek: Enterprise, which is not a part of TOS- TNG(tv)'s timeline.

This evolves into STXI, which canonized Enterprise within its own framework. The world is now familiar, but drastically different with giant ships that are much more advanced then they were originally.

This renders all of the post-STFC history meaningless. But really I'm okay with that.

 

[EVL_Ripper]

I miss the Prime Universe.

 

[RoJoHen]

^^I'm firmly in the camp that thinks the 'true' history of Trek was ended after the events of ST: First Contact. The new movie reinforces this nicely actually.

The Ent-E's effect on history radically altered and increased the early development of warp travel, the result of which is Star Trek: Enterprise, which is not a part of TOS- TNG(tv)'s timeline.

This evolves into STXI, which canonized Enterprise within its own framework. The world is now familiar, but drastically different with giant ships that are much more advanced then they were originally.

This renders all of the post-STFC history meaningless. But really I'm okay with that.

But according to the Shatnerverse novels, the events in FC already created the Mirror Universe!

Star Trek is silly.

 

[mattburgess]

Originally from Prologic9:
^^I'm firmly in the camp that thinks the 'true' history of Trek was ended after the events of ST: First Contact. The new movie reinforces this nicely actually.

The Ent-E's effect on history radically altered and increased the early development of warp travel, the result of which is Star Trek: Enterprise, which is not a part of TOS- TNG(tv)'s timeline.

This evolves into STXI, which canonized Enterprise within its own framework. The world is now familiar, but drastically different with giant ships that are much more advanced then they were originally.

I hadn't thought of that, but I think it's a great explanation! And a great way of fitting Enterprise into the whole of Star Trek. Reeves-Stevens' Federation would still fit then (for the most part), and Year One, and other books. Also, it would suggest that Abrams' Trek was already around, and either Spock Prime found his way into that universe, or some other Spock (from yet another universe) crossed over.
I might adopt that into my way of watching Star Trek now! Thanks!

Originally from RoJoHen:
But according to the Shatnerverse novels, the events in FC already created the Mirror Universe!

I'm sure you were going for this anyway, but I just have to make sure it's said: "Not that Shatnerverse has anything to do with anything."

Need to let it go...

 

[Shazam!]

There is the prime universe and there is the new universe. They split when the Kelvin blew up.

However you want to work it out in your heads, those are the facts.

 

[therealfoxbat]

Sounds a bit absolute for my taste...

All the Trek fans out there interested in time travel, if you ever get the chance, should see (live or in video footage) Harlan Ellison talk about what Star Trek did with his story City On The Edge Of Forever. Until you do, it is not possible for you to truly understand the meaning of the word RANT...

 

[Nerys Myk]

Harlan gives good rant on many a subject. I remember attending a rant about "speculative fiction" vs Science Fiction. A classic

 

[KottenFutz]

^^I'm firmly in the camp that thinks the 'true' history of Trek was ended after the events of ST: First Contact. The new movie reinforces this nicely actually.

The Ent-E's effect on history radically altered and increased the early development of warp travel, the result of which is Star Trek: Enterprise, which is not a part of TOS- TNG(tv)'s timeline.

This evolves into STXI, which canonized Enterprise within its own framework. The world is now familiar, but drastically different with giant ships that are much more advanced then they were originally.

This renders all of the post-STFC history meaningless. But really I'm okay with that.

I agree with this... and it's what sets everything right in my mind. I gotta think that Cochrane was a changed man after interacting with Picard and crew, a more focused and driven man, with a new goal towards a kick ass Starfleet. Not the meandering uncertain organization that it was in TOS. Which carries onward to Archer, heavily influenced by our man Cochrane, and does the same to make a new kick ass Federation... all the pieces finally fit, I LOVE IT !! And it set a different timeline in motion. Think about it: TNG therefore affected the timeline once (for the better), TOS's Spock influenced it again, so the major players in classic Trek had a hand in forging this new improved Trek, and therefore, not so meaningless in the big picture. It makes me feel all warm inside.

And yeah, I said new and improved, cuz it is, and it needed to be, and I ain't gonna apologize for it... look, I love TOS, but it just seems silly at times and out-of-date and often it's hard for me to wrangle my feelings about that, to watch it thru my modern futurist eyes. I know it was filmed in the sixties, I get it, but to truly fit into all of Trek it simply no longer holds up. I loved the actors, the characters, the ship, a lot of the show was great. But it no longer fits... until now. It was from another time, literally and figuratively, and all Trek after that followed that same line. TNG seems just as silly, not until the 3rd season did it find its way but was still so behind in tech and concept for a 24th century depiction.

Now we have a Trek for the ages, one that will endure, and with this notion of how things actually changed starting in FC, I can feel good allowing TOS and TNG to exist in context but not bog down what we now have.

Enterprise is the new 'Original Series' and Star Trek XI is the new 'Next Generation', and I like that... I like that a lot.

 

[Immolatus]

This guy explains it all better than me here:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/treknology/timetravel-trekxi.htm

interesting read