Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C - CLOSED - DO NOT RESTART TOPIC

[Mytran]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

I think the War Timeline has to continue, because Tasha Yar keeps on surviving in the regular TNG timeline even after the vortex has closed and war with the Klingons is averted.

If Tasha had come from a simple rewriting of the main TNG timeline then she would have vanished once her timeline of origin was eliminated, just like alt-Picard did in Time Squared when the crew took a different route.

 

[blssdwlf]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

I think Data pointed out that the -C would appear at "almost the exact moment" she disappeared. It's kinda like the temporal vortex in "Future's End" or the black hole in ST'09, where time moved at a different rate at each end (seconds at one end were years at the other)

I had a search through the transcript and couldn't find that reference (although I may have missed a certain phrase). However it would be an odd definition of a "symmetrical" tunnel if it had different behaviour at each end. Maybe Data simply meant a ship could travel both ways?

That's kinda how I took it, that it was a 2-way vortex based on this dialogue (and also included where Data said they'd appear almost the same instant she left):

DATA: There is a high degree of probability that the temporal rift is symmetrical, Captain.
PICARD: Then what would happen if the Enterprise C were to fly back through it?
DATA: Back, sir? The Enterprise C would emerge in her own time period at almost the same instant she left.
​

1. Enterprise(original) goes to Psi2000
2. Enterprise(original) 3 days later time travels back 3 days
3. Enterprise(original) goes to her next destination instead of Psi2000

Since the Enterprise(original) was free to go to another destination and not be doomed repeat the events of Psi2000 over and over again (looping back to step 1) then their time traveling is insulating them from the effects of going back in time and also giving them the ability to overwrite their timeline once they are back in normal time, IMHO.

I suspect we're just interpreting the episode's clues in two radically different ways (rather than there being any actual misunderstanding of events) but just to clarify what I think is going on, I thought I should get the crayons out

From the Enterprise's POV, there is no "rewinding" involved - they are just 3 days older now than the rest of the universe! And since the data banks and memories of the crew appear intact, there would be no danger of repeating the same events over and over again - they'd know exactly what to avoid! However, as they have (IMHO) overlapped themselves in the timeline, the last thing they would want to do is return to PSI-2000, as there's already an Enterprise there.
​

Yes, that's how I'd draw it in chalk as well

However where we differ in interpretation are:

1) The Enterprise goes backwards in time along the same route they came.
2) The events of the episode at Psi2000 take well less than a day (0.2 stardates and 19 minutes) which would mean 3 days prior that the Enterprise was not at Psi2000.
3) The Enterprise that jumped back in time should have detected or encountered the Enterprise enroute to Psi2000 or doing something else given that the time-traveling Enterprise took the same path.
4) Yet they don't run into each other.
5) Spock never even mentions the possibility of duplicates or implications. Instead he says, they get to live those days over again implying they can repeat it and Kirk decides to change it.

This effect occurs also in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" where the Enterprise at the end, goes further back in time than the beginning of the episode and then overwrote the events where the Enterprise interacted with Christopher and the guard. Where we should have seen two Enterprises at the same time, we only saw the one doing the overwriting.

SPOCK: Logically, as we move faster and faster toward the sun, we'll begin to move backward in time. We'll actually go back beyond yesterday, beyond the point when we first appeared in the sky. Then, breaking free will shoot us forward in time, and we'll transport you back before any of this happened.
KIRK: You won't have anything to remember, because it never would have happened.
​

So instead of seeing the Enterprise tractor the F-104, we saw the Enterprise get low enough to beam Christopher on the Enterprise onto the F104 to overwrite Christopher but with no memory of the time traveling. Ditto for the AF guard.

Apply this to "The Naked Time" and instead of seeing another Enterprise on it's way to Psi2000, we see the Enterprise head off to another destination - altering history.

Also notice, "Captain. We have three days to live over again." If there was a duplicate ship/timeline Spock would've likely said instead, "we need to time travel forward 3 days to prevent contaminating our timeline."

While it's interesting to speculate on what character might have said, all we know for sure is what was actually said and done. At the end of the episode, Kirk sets off for their "next" mission. Spock does not raise an objection, indeed this is probably the best thing to do to avoid bumping into their past selves.

As said above, I don't think Spock was hiding the idea that another Enterprise was out there since he pulls the same logic in "Yesterday's Enterprise".

SPOCK: This does open some intriguing prospects, Captain. Since the formula worked, we can go back in time, to any planet, any era.

If the NT timewarp merely rewinds the Enterprise along its own timeline, it would never be able to go further back than it's own construction. Spock's comment strongly indicates otherwise, unless he was just guessing (and Vulcans do not guess )

Since we see the Enterprise able to further back than their lifetime I would suggest that there is no such restriction.

From observing "The Naked Time" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday", I'd say that:
1) While the ship is time-traveling "slowly/normally" forward she can interact/overwrite into the timeline.
2) When she is traveling quickly (forwards or backwards) she is unable to interact with the timeline. This allows her to not overwrite her past existence/history as she travels to and from her home century.
3) But what this also means is that the time-travel is sequential and not parallel. We don't get to see two Kirks or two Enterprises here in normal time ala Back to the Future.

​

I know, odd rules, but that's what we can observe

So, a thought experiment.
1) Enterprise appears and Christopher flies up in his F104 to investigate.
2) Christopher disappears from his F104 and never has a child to lead the Saturn mission.
3) The timeline now proceeds differently than what was recorded in TOS.
4) Enterprise jumps forward in time back to their own time and discover it has changed.
5) Enterprise goes back in time with Christopher before step 1 and overwrites history by beaming Christopher back and not having the Enterprise tractor and crush the F104 and leaves back to their own time.
6) History flows as it was recorded in TOS with Christopher.

Functionally this isn't that different than YE. In steps 3 and 4, it's a different timeline with different histories because Christopher disappeared and the Enterprise has to go back in time to undo aka restore it back to the way they remembered it.

 

[blssdwlf]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

I think the War Timeline has to continue, because Tasha Yar keeps on surviving in the regular TNG timeline even after the vortex has closed and war with the Klingons is averted.

If Tasha had come from a simple rewriting of the main TNG timeline then she would have vanished once her timeline of origin was eliminated, just like alt-Picard did in Time Squared when the crew took a different route.

"Time Squared" is quite a bit different than "Yesterday's Enterprise". The alt-Picard and alt-shuttle was tied to the living vortex and didn't function normally until he intersected with the time he disappeared. The reason why they disappeared may not have been time-related but simply because the E-D flew into it with the alt-Picard. The Vortex wanted them since Troi indicated that it was focused on getting the "brain" of the E-D. You might say they were lucky to have a spare Picard to give to the Vortex

Contrast that to YE where there was no such effect on the E-C crew or ship.

As to War Tasha surviving in the TNG timeline, why wouldn't she? If time-travelers can retain their memory and sensor data of altered timelines that are erased ("Tomorrow is Yesterday", "The Naked Time", "First Contact", "Children of Time") then War Tasha surviving when her timeline is erased should not present an issue, IMHO.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

I had a search through the transcript and couldn't find that reference (although I may have missed a certain phrase). However it would be an odd definition of a "symmetrical" tunnel if it had different behaviour at each end. Maybe Data simply meant a ship could travel both ways?

I checked. I had it the phrasing slightly wrong:

DATA: There is a high degree of probability that the temporal rift is symmetrical, Captain.

PICARD: Then what would happen if the Enterprise C were to fly back through it?

DATA: Back, sir? The Enterprise C would emerge in her own time period at almost the same instant she left.

PICARD: Right in the middle of the battle with the l Romulans.

DATA: Yes, sir.


I agree, "symmetrical" was probably put in there to make it clear that a return journey was possible.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

@ Mytran

Very concise "Naked Time" graphic that illustrates the issue. I like it. And much better than my "crayons" (actually "highlighters") as most will agree.

@ All

I thought it might be a good idea to ask Andrew Probert, why he included the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise on the conference lounge display, and this is what he said:

"I didn’t want to clutter up the display. The atomic carrier is there simply for scale, being a somewhat known reference." (Andrew only provided side views for the sculptor)

Of course, from a real life production point of view, we shouldn't forget that the series was made for general, average and ordinary people (that's what I meant with "normal" in the closed TNG thread).

From an in-universe point of view in the 24th Century the starships on display would be the known size reference to get an idea of the carrier size, though.

Anyway, I provided an in-universe explanation, but anything that could suggest that the Enterprise-C on the wall display is canon, authentic and genuine is obviously not what some people here want to hear.

@ sojourner

I think you better have your translator examined and fixed. Cadet Porky Pig could probably do it for you.

Sure, if Fleet Admiral Shanthi or Starfleet's queen bitch Nechayev would have learned from Guinan what happened in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and then confront Picard, he would have been the one "responsible" who "sent" Tasha Yar to the past in military lingo.

But Guinan (Ron Moore) presented the information in a fashion that even corn farmer Joe Sixpack from Iowa with no military background could understand, that this is not what actually happened in "Yesterday's Enterprise".

Again, as the final screenplay writer for "Yesterday's Enterprise" Ron Moore could have easily made "Redemption II" compatible with events in "Yesterday's Enterprise", but he did not! That's rather clear evidence that him and Carson deliberately relocated "Yesterday's Enterprise" into a "parallel universe" (Carson), because that elegant move also took care of a couple of other problematic issues (which I will apparently need to spell out at the earliest next convenience).

I'm looking forward to explanations why he made Guinan and Sela say something differently. Because he was an incompetent screenplay writer? Because he was a sadist who anticipated that fans would be at each other throats debating how to interprete this "inconsistency"?
I really wonder who is in need of explaining.

The one thing I increasingly notice in this discussion is that most participants have no problem accepting the revisionistic nature of retroactive continuity, but are utterly unable to accept the possibility that a revision could equally itself be revised - and with the consequence that an erased design (Probert's Enterprise-C) has been restored like the supposedly revised timeline in "Yesterday's Enterprise".

That "decisive" detail only tells us that in the War timeline:
1. the Klingon outpost's distress messages were not received by the Klingons or the Federation
2. and there was no evidence that the Klingons received or confirmed that the E-C was responding to their distress call.
3. the Federation had no idea what happened to the E-C or even connected the dots to the battle at Narendra-3.

Contrast that to the TNG timeline where:

PICARD: Enterprise C? She was lost at the battle of Narendra Three, defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.
​

1. the E-C was confirmed to be defending a Klingon outpost at Narendra 3
2. the E-C was fighting Romulans
3. the E-C lost the battle

How would they know unless they saw the E-C? And if they did then they'd have eyewitness accounts of what it looked like. Plus, Starfleet and the Klingons would be examining the debris and if it belonged to a mystery ship instead of the native E-C that'd raise red flags.

Because the Klingon/s surviving the Romulan assault (the witness/es of what really happened at Narendra III) had learned of Garrett's first message and her subsequent distress call:

TASHA: Enterprise C is sending out a distress call, sir. Audio only.
GARRETT [OC]: This is Captain Garrett of the Starship Enterprise, to any Federation ship. We have been attacked by Romulan warships and require immediate assistance. We've lost warp drive. Life support is failing.

Obviously no long-range communication had been possible, but even a Klingon communicator could have picked up this vital information, even if they had been "blinded".
If the Enterprise-C received and acknowledged the outpost's distress call, but nobody else ever heard it, this would suggest that at least some form of Klingon short-range communication had remained intact.
Of course, I'd announce my coming on the same frequency as the caller, but apparently that was only short-range.

And the Klingon survivor/s could have pieced together that someone had come to their rescue because of the sudden interruption of the Romulan bombardment when the four warbirds diverted their fire against the Enterprise-C to get rid of this uninvited Federation eyewitness.

The decisive element (also according to an original screenplay draft) was to have Klingon witnesses to tell what really happened.

On the contrary, with no Klingon survivors left alive but wreckage of a Federation starship, the whole thing could have looked like an unprovoked Federation attack on a Klingon outpost where both perished in the mutual fire exchange. Even better than what the Roumulans could have hoped for.

Lumping Tasha's death on Vargus is inconsistent with your argument here. Of course it was called out as a meaningless death.

Volunteering to die on the E-C and then dying as a prisoner of war while knowing your sacrifice altered history to save the Federation. That's meaningful.

I can immediately think of another (4th) but truly "meaningful death" of Tasha Yar (which I forgot to list): Man your post until the very last second to ensure the existence of the galaxy and every living being in it.

So out of these four deaths, two are most definitely "meaningful" (because of the meaningful outcomes) while the other two are debatable, at best.

Bob

 

[largo]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

it's the war doctor's enterprise. the one which nobody acknowledges.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

DATA: There is a high degree of probability that the temporal rift is symmetrical, Captain.
PICARD: Then what would happen if the Enterprise C were to fly back through it?
DATA: Back, sir? The Enterprise C would emerge in her own time period at almost the same instant she left.
PICARD: Right in the middle of the battle with the Romulans. DATA: Yes, sir.

However it would be an odd definition of a "symmetrical" tunnel if it had different behaviour at each end. Maybe Data simply meant a ship could travel both ways?

It's pretty ambiguous and apparently speculation on Data's part (just a "high degree of proabability").

There are uncertainties involved, but frankly I wondered why the Enterprise-C risked re-entering the rift head-on. With Romulan warbirds apparently pursuing the ship, the re-entry could have resulted in a head-on collision of the "C" with a warbird, resulting in the instantaneous destruction of two ships.

The one thing we can be assured of, is that time-wise the spatial anomaly was not symmetrical. At the arrival point several hours equalled only seconds at the original point of entry.

The Enterprise that jumped back in time should have detected or encountered the Enterprise enroute to Psi2000 or doing something else given that the time-traveling Enterprise took the same path.

Why? They were travelling back in time but additionally with some warping effect that could have placed the "older" Enterprise at a different location than the "younger" one.

Knowing that their "younger" counterparts would resolve the situation, the older crew decided not to interfere with past events and let history successfully unfold as it did and was expected to happen.

But I notice that retroactive continuity with its overwriting, revising and rebooting characteristics now also serves as a tool to rationalize illogical time travel scenarios - "overwriting" has apparently become Star Trek's new trademark tool.

Bob

 

[Dukhat]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Of course, from a real life production point of view, we shouldn't forget that the series was made for general, average and ordinary people (that's what I meant with "normal" in the closed TNG thread).

Anyway, I provided an in-universe explanation, but anything that could suggest that the Enterprise-C on the wall display is canon, authentic and genuine is obviously not what some people here want to hear.

I'm looking forward to explanations why he made Guinan and Sela say something differently...I really wonder who is in need of explaining.

The one thing I increasingly notice in this discussion is that most participants have no problem accepting the revisionistic nature of retroactive continuity, but are utterly unable to accept the possibility that a revision could equally itself be revised - and with the consequence that an erased design (Probert's Enterprise-C) has been restored like the supposedly revised timeline in "Yesterday's Enterprise".

Or maybe, just maybe, it's your self-righteous and pompous holier-than-thou attitude in statements such as the above that is turning people off to your theories, not that they actually have a problem with what you believe.

NOT ONCE have you said, "hey, yeah, maybe it can be interpreted another way than what I'm speculating," or "okay, sure, I might be wrong here" when people point out flaws in your theories. It's always "no, your wrong, these are the facts, and here's why" with you, along with some thinly veiled insults toward us to the effect of why you "simply can't understand why we don't think they way you do," and accuse us of doing something no one actually did (desecrating your holy relic Probert design). Perhaps if you didn't always think you are right 100% of the time and the rest of us are wrong 100% of the time, people would take you more seriously. You may not like Sojourner's "translation," but he's spot on. This discussion serves no purpose because trying to reason with someone who is so dead-set on believing his own dogma is pointless. I've asked a moderator to close this thread, but they have so far chosen to ignore me. At least some meaningful discussion about "Tomorrow is Yesterday" is going on here.

And I'm sure you'll come right back in response and say that you've done nothing of the sort and simply cannot understand why I would say something like this. It's what I've come to expect from you.

 

[STRenegade]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Of course, from a real life production point of view, we shouldn't forget that the series was made for general, average and ordinary people (that's what I meant with "normal" in the closed TNG thread).

Anyway, I provided an in-universe explanation, but anything that could suggest that the Enterprise-C on the wall display is canon, authentic and genuine is obviously not what some people here want to hear.

I'm looking forward to explanations why he made Guinan and Sela say something differently...I really wonder who is in need of explaining.

The one thing I increasingly notice in this discussion is that most participants have no problem accepting the revisionistic nature of retroactive continuity, but are utterly unable to accept the possibility that a revision could equally itself be revised - and with the consequence that an erased design (Probert's Enterprise-C) has been restored like the supposedly revised timeline in "Yesterday's Enterprise".

Or maybe, just maybe, it's your self-righteous and pompous holier-than-thou attitude in statements such as the above that is turning people off to your theories, not that they actually have a problem with what you believe.

NOT ONCE have you said, "hey, yeah, maybe it can be interpreted another way than what I'm speculating," or "okay, sure, I might be wrong here" when people point out flaws in your theories. It's always "no, your wrong, these are the facts, and here's why" with you, along with some thinly veiled insults toward us to the effect of why you "simply can't understand why we don't think they way you do," and accuse us of doing something no one actually did (desecrating your holy relic Probert design). Perhaps if you didn't always think you are right 100% of the time and the rest of us are wrong 100% of the time, people would take you more seriously. You may not like Sojourner's "translation," but he's spot on. This discussion serves no purpose because trying to reason with someone who is so dead-set on believing his own dogma is pointless. I've asked a moderator to close this thread, but they have so far chosen to ignore me. At least some meaningful discussion about "Tomorrow is Yesterday" is going on here.

And I'm sure you'll come right back in response and say that you've done nothing of the sort and simply cannot understand why I would say something like this. It's what I've come to expect from you.

His theories seem to have more plot holes the JJ movies combined.
One I noticed from his theories is that because he relocates the Yesterday's Enterprise to an alternate Timeline, that means the C must be an alternate as well.

 

[beamMe]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

What are you talking about?
This comment was only for the altenate War Timeline, since it is unknown whether or not it continued. It has nothing to do with the Mirror Universe (already established as a parallel universe despite any interactions with the Prime one) or the JJverse (how you came to that conclusion is beyond me) which exists because Prime Spock and Nero went backwards in time (only way to rectify that timeline is if Spock and Nero were pulled back to their time the second they arrived in the past).

You are trying to make a distinction were none exists.
Why do you separate the alternative timeline we see in YE from the one in "Mirror Mirror", the one we see briefly in "First Contact" or the one from "Star Trek"?

Because once again did the War Timeline continue or not, or was it part of some temporal event that was rectified when the E-C went back? There is a distinction, and it is that while the Mirror and JJ (unfortunately) universes are permanent, the War Timeline is up for question as to whether or not it is.

Whatever. Your "unfortunately" tells me, that I shouldn't have any further conversation with you.