nuTrek will reimagine TOS episodes in ongoing comic...

[Pauln6]

But again, if you are 'creating' an entire timeline from nothing, where does all the matter and energy need to create that timeline (an entire universe) come from? This version only works if you can overwrite the original timeline, which is not what is advocated with the NuTrek franchise.

So, in other words, branching theory only works if it's really just single-timeline theory by another name, meaning that true branching theory simply cannot work. This is starting to sound like self-fulfilling prophecy.

If time occurs everywhere all at once then past events that are dependent upon future events cannot happen if those future events don't happen.

That's why "time occurs everywhere all at once" sounds nice from a poetic standpoint but is not particularly meaningful or workable when applied to an actual plot. At the point when the Abrams timeline is originally created, it is not yet subject to the effects of hypothetical time travel from its ( as yet unknown ) future. To try to somehow make it so would constitute an untenable logical proposition, and would ultimately prevent the timeline from being in a fixed state in 2233 or any other point.

There you go. And people dissed me when I said it was complicated.

 

[Set Harth]

That's why "time occurs everywhere all at once" sounds nice from a poetic standpoint but is not particularly meaningful or workable when applied to an actual plot. At the point when the Abrams timeline is originally created, it is not yet subject to the effects of hypothetical time travel from its ( as yet unknown ) future. To try to somehow make it so would constitute an untenable logical proposition, and would ultimately prevent the timeline from being in a fixed state in 2233 or any other point.

There you go. And people dissed me when I said it was complicated.

You said branching theory was complicated. The above does not describe branching theory. It describes the apparent assumption that the Abramsverse must somehow reflect future hypothetical time travel in its timeline at the moment the new timeline is created.

 

[UFO]

... At the point when the Abrams timeline is originally created, it is not yet subject to the effects of hypothetical time travel from its ( as yet unknown ) future. To try to somehow make it so would constitute an untenable logical proposition, and would ultimately prevent the timeline from being in a fixed state in 2233 or any other point.

There you go. And people dissed me when I said it was complicated.

You said branching theory was complicated. The above does not describe branching theory. It describes the apparent assumption that the Abramsverse must somehow reflect future hypothetical time travel in its timeline at the moment the new timeline is created.

And in a pure branching theory scenario, it never will "... reflect future hypothetical time travel in its timeline at the moment the new timeline is created."

Edit: You've gotta love it!

 

[F. King Daniel]

What we see on TV/film is one "track" through infinite branches of a timeline. All the branching stuff is a massive oversimplification.

It's like a babushka doll of time and space.

 

[Set Harth]

There you go. And people dissed me when I said it was complicated.

You said branching theory was complicated. The above does not describe branching theory. It describes the apparent assumption that the Abramsverse must somehow reflect future hypothetical time travel in its timeline at the moment the new timeline is created.

And in a pure branching theory scenario, it never will "... reflect future hypothetical time travel in its timeline at the moment the new timeline is created."

That's what I said. The supposed "complexity" of branching arises from trying to treat branching as though it is something else entirely.

 

[Sonata]

Hm, it sounds interesting. I'll have to check it out when it comes out.

 

[shapeshifter]

Huh? Oh yeah, the topic. I agree. My comic book guy is on notice to order and save me a copy of each.

 

[RAMA]

http://trekmovie.com/2011/07/29/idw...eviews-movie-universe-gary-mitchell-revealed/

 

[C.E. Evans]

^^^
Heh. Mitchell in the Star Trek XI duds...

 

[MvRojo]

Issues #1-2 are "Where No Man Has Gone Before"
Issue #3 is "The Galileo Seven"

Hopefully, original stories will show up soon as well.

 

[Pauln6]

Damn - do we get Mears instead of Rand? I want Janice!

 

[EnsignRicky]

Cool. Star Trek Infinities.

 

[Yevetha]

The covers are cool, i cannot wait for the Gallileo seven one.

 

[Pauln6]

I wonder if they will make Trelane Q's son that was 'born' during Voyager?

 

[Yevetha]

I hope they remake The Cage.