What was the most fateful moment in the new timeline?

[Temis the Vorta]

I think the new timeline was created BEFORE Nero appeared. There is too much history based off the original Enterprise and E - D to suggest everything wasw change d just 25 years ago.

Which is why I'm sticking with my theory that the timeline pre-dated Nero's incursion by a loooooong ways. It was created when one universe bumped into an adjacent universe, setting off a Big Bang, which created this new universe/timeline (they're the same thing, really). That's how all universe/timelines are created. You can't create a whole universe just by jumping dimensions, that's silly!

 

[F. King Daniel]

That graphic wasn't actualy used in the episode - and the ones that were were contradicted a few episodes later in the finale.

Yes it was.

From TrekCore's screen captures of the episode, fifth page, lower right link. You can even (barely) read the entry on Kirk.

So the bit on the prior screen where it says Archer steps down from commanding the Enterprise in 2060 (it was 2161 in "These Are the Voyages") and the bit on that screen where they say First Contact was in 2061 (when it was 2063 in the First Contact movie) aren't canon, but the line at the bottom about Kirk's birthplace is?

 

[Agenda]

Star Trek has many continuity gaffes. Even the continuity in the main timeline is inherently flawed. Just because not everything matches up doesn't mean that the new timeline's divergence point doesn't hold true.

 

[Set Harth]

It was created when one universe bumped into an adjacent universe

What does this even mean?

the act of time travel itself creates a new universe

 

[Hythlodeus]

it means copulating universes...

 

[Psion]

That graphic wasn't actualy used in the episode - and the ones that were were contradicted a few episodes later in the finale.

Yes it was.

From TrekCore's screen captures of the episode, fifth page, lower right link. You can even (barely) read the entry on Kirk.

So the bit on the prior screen where it says Archer steps down from commanding the Enterprise in 2060 (it was 2161 in "These Are the Voyages") and the bit on that screen where they say First Contact was in 2061 (when it was 2063 in the First Contact movie) aren't canon, but the line at the bottom about Kirk's birthplace is?

Yep.

Or, to expand on my original point, Kirk was originally from Iowa -- both from an in-character perspective as quoted from Star Trek IV, and from a character conception perspective as noted in the original Making of Star Trek. In 2008, no one would even think about arguing which state Kirk was born in ... both the show's "bible" and a canon reference made it obvious he was supposed to hale from the Hawkeye State. Even JJ's movie thought to work around this by originally calling the Kelvin the Iowa. If any fan had suggested Kirk was born anywhere other than Iowa, the rest of us would have promptly shouted that suggestion down.

Of course, the intent of Trek 2009 was to alter that in the new timeline. But things got a little sloppy. Someone decided "Iowa" wasn't a good name for the ship, so they called it Kelvin and then showed Winona Kirk in sickbay as though giving birth at the time of the attack. The stress of the attack didn't drive her into labor, she was already giving birth. A clever workaround was bungled and folks who don't think 25 years is enough time for the changes seen between TOS and Trek 2009 now have another argument that the divergence point was earlier than Narada's penetration.

And in a way, that makes more sense. Narada didn't just create the Trek 2009 universe ... it left the TOS timestream and then entered another, pre-existing, but similar reality when it went through the wormhole. That works for me as a possible explanation of events, don't be such a fundamentalist in your interpretation of Trek 2009! [insert wry emoticon here to make it clear I'm not intending that to be anything more than a friendly jibe]

It was created when one universe bumped into an adjacent universe

What does this even mean?

The Vorta infers a cosmology a bit more complex than simply creating a new reality which includes its own history with just a bit of time travel. I'm not sure I agree with that, but it's an interpretation I'm willing to entertain in polite conversation. N'cest pas?

 

[Franklin]

it means copulating universes...

I thought multiple universes coming together was called the big gang bang theory.

Actually, the type of sci-fi time travel permitted by Orci et al in ST09 may be more true to the prevalent view today than other Trek time travel. That is, at least as I get my mind around it, someone can go back in time, but physics won't allow paradoxes, so the person going back can't change history. Nero shouldn't have been able to change history. So, the sci-fi part was a compromise. He didn't change Trek history. He created another reality.

 

[Psion]

Actually, the type of sci-fi time travel permitted by Orci et al in ST09 may be more true to the prevalent view today than other Trek time travel. That is, at least as I get my mind around it, someone can go back in time, but physics won't allow paradoxes, so the person going back can't change history. Nero shouldn't have been able to change history. So, the sci-fi part was a compromise. He didn't change Trek history. He created another reality.

You're right. But you also have to remember that time is just another dimension in spacetime. I'd suggest that at the moment of creation, a universe contains every possible outcome stretching throughout its history. If time travel is possible, then movement along that dimension is also included in the possible outcomes ... and ... something something something. [tech]

 

[Set Harth]

A clever workaround was bungled and folks who don't think 25 years is enough time for the changes seen between TOS and Trek 2009 now have another argument that the divergence point was earlier than Narada's penetration.

That would only be an argument if "from Iowa" necessarily meant "born in Iowa". What is he supposed to say, "I'm from space"?

Narada didn't just create the Trek 2009 universe ... it left the TOS timestream and then entered another, pre-existing, but similar reality when it went through the wormhole.

Not merely similar - conveniently identical to the past of the Prime. In fact, it is the past of the Prime - not in the sense that the "current" condition of the Prime could be altered by changing Abramsverse history, but in the sense of an exact copy. So in its "unaltered" state this allegedly preexisting universe just so happened to be an exact copy of the Prime timeline, and an infinite supply of other such copies would be conveniently on hand for any other possible red matter black hole time travel that might occur. How is this interpretation really so much more palatable than saying the time travel itself created the new universe?

 

[Psion]

A clever workaround was bungled and folks who don't think 25 years is enough time for the changes seen between TOS and Trek 2009 now have another argument that the divergence point was earlier than Narada's penetration.

That would only be an argument if "from Iowa" necessarily meant "born in Iowa". What is he supposed to say, "I'm from space"?

Why not?

Narada didn't just create the Trek 2009 universe ... it left the TOS timestream and then entered another, pre-existing, but similar reality when it went through the wormhole.

Not merely similar - conveniently identical to the past of the Prime. In fact, it is the past of the Prime - not in the sense that the "current" condition of the Prime could be altered by changing Abramsverse history, but in the sense of an exact copy. So in its "unaltered" state this allegedly preexisting universe just so happened to be an exact copy of the Prime timeline, and an infinite supply of other such copies would be conveniently on hand for any other possible red matter black hole time travel that might occur. How is this interpretation really so much more palatable than saying the time travel itself created the new universe?

But ... it wasn't identical to the past of the Prime. Not only did the characters look different (an unfortunate necessity since the actors changed), but Chekov was older. And none of the Treknology matched up. Show me one thing from Trek 2009 that was even close to looking identical to the past of Prime.

Now ... I'm really gonna make you flip out. Spock "Prime" wasn't from the Prime universe, either. He recognized Scotty immediately. Even though Simon Pegg's Scotty didn't look anything like James Doohan's. Spock "Prime" was from the future of the Trek 2009 universe before the Narada went back in time.

How d'ya like dem apples?!

 

[Set Harth]

But ... it wasn't identical to the past of the Prime.

It was intended to be. The rest falls under cinematic license and isn't meant as evidence of a previously divergent timeline.

Why not?

Because the yearbook for Edge of Federation Space High School came out and he wasn't in it?

 

[F. King Daniel]

In "Parallels",Data says that"For any event, there are an infinite number of possible outcomes" and "Anything that can happen, does happen, in alternate quantum realities" - then we see a diagram of timelines branching into infinity.

Nero and Spock go back from timeline A, and the changes they make result in timeline B. Seen from another perspective in time, in timeline B, Nero appears in 2233 (and Spock in 2258) wheras in timeline A (which begat them), they didn't, and the USS Kelvingot backto Earth without incident.

From the second perspective, it's a simple "does Nero appear?" YES/NO branch point in history - no different from the "Do the Enterprise-D crew get Picard back from the Borg" and "Do the Borg win?" branches seen in "Parallels"

Here's the hardcore real-life technobabble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Star Trek is fiction. The actors looking different and the sets being modernized are irrelevent. The TOS Enterprise bridge "really" looked no more like painted plywood sets with photos crudely stuck along the permimeter walls than the Gorn "really" looked like a guy in a fake rubber suit.

 

[Franklin]

In "Parallels",Data says that"For any event, there are an infinite number of possible outcomes" and "Anything that can happen, does happen, in alternate quantum realities" - then we see a diagram of timelines branching into infinity.

Nero and Spock go back from timeline A, and the changes they make result in timeline B. Seen from another perspective in time, in timeline B, Nero appears in 2233 (and Spock in 2258) wheras in timeline A (which begat them), they didn't, and the USS Kelvingot backto Earth without incident.

From the second perspective, it's a simple "does Nero appear?" YES/NO branch point in history - no different from the "Do the Enterprise-D crew get Picard back from the Borg" and "Do the Borg win?" branches seen in "Parallels"

Here's the hardcore real-life technobabble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Star Trek is fiction. The actors looking different and the sets being modernized are irrelevent. The TOS Enterprise bridge "really" looked no more like painted plywood sets with photos crudely stuck along the permimeter walls than the Gorn "really" looked like a guy in a fake rubber suit.

As the "science" to back up the "science fiction," this view also addresses the question of why the crew of the Enteprise in ST09 simply didn't go back in time and "correct" the timeline. Apparently this isn't allowed in the Trek universe Orci and Kurtzman created. This timeline is as real and legitimate as the "original" timeline is. Cause and effect were not violated because something new was created. The other timeline still exists. There is nothing to "correct" in the new timeline. No reset button to push.

How Orci and Kurtzman chose to handle things certainly contradicts how time travel was used in some of the best Trek stories -- e.g. "City", "Yesterday's Enterprise", FC -- but it also seems more credible as the science behind the science fiction. Think about it, as good as those other Trek stories were, a universe with laws of physics that would make it possible to go back within a single timeline and alter it over and over again would be an utterly chaotic universe. (Though it does make for a dramatically interesting one.)

 

[M'Sharak]

Now ... I'm really gonna make you flip out. Spock "Prime" wasn't from the Prime universe, either. He recognized Scotty immediately. Even though Simon Pegg's Scotty didn't look anything like James Doohan's. Spock "Prime" was from the future of the Trek 2009 universe before the Narada went back in time.

How d'ya like dem apples?!

Pfft, that's not a problem - Spock's own exceptional aural sensitivity allowed him to easily recognize Scotty by his unique accent, in spite of the seeming difference in outward appearance.

 

[Paul Weaver]

The Kelvin was on the way back to Earth, under 24 hours away, when it was diverted to investigate an unusual anomaly. 3 days later it arrives at the anomaly just in time to for the Nerada to come through.

The timeline forked at the beginning of the subspace anomaly (caused by Nero), which was a few days before the on-screen action begins.

That said, Trek has been in an alternative universe since First Contact, and the Borg killed a bunch of people close to Cochrane and get exposed to 24th century technology.

 

[Psion]

That said, Trek has been in an alternative universe since First Contact, and the Borg killed a bunch of people close to Cochrane and get exposed to 24th century technology.

I've been claiming this since before the first season of Enterprise. It also dovetailed in nicely with the whole "Temporal Cold War" angle to that show. The events of First Contact inadvertently triggered the TCW. Cochrane and Sloane's exposure to 24th century engineering and ship designs led to more advanced starships earlier than before (remember all the complaints back then about how advanced the NX-01 was? About how big it was?) And then that led into Star Trek 2009 with an even bigger and more advanced Starship Enterprise.

Of course, that's just one interpretation.

 

[F. King Daniel]

That said, Trek has been in an alternative universe since First Contact, and the Borg killed a bunch of people close to Cochrane and get exposed to 24th century technology.

I've been claiming this since before the first season of Enterprise. It also dovetailed in nicely with the whole "Temporal Cold War" angle to that show. The events of First Contact inadvertently triggered the TCW. Cochrane and Sloane's exposure to 24th century engineering and ship designs led to more advanced starships earlier than before (remember all the complaints back then about how advanced the NX-01 was? About how big it was?) And then that led into Star Trek 2009 with an even bigger and more advanced Starship Enterprise.

Of course, that's just one interpretation.

One inconsistant with Enterprise itself. Recall "In a Mirror, Darkly", where a Constitution-class starship smashed through 22nd century human and Andorian ships like tin foil? And included information about "our" Archer and Hoshi in the database (and I'm going by what was said, not illegable screen graphics) Or the finale, which definitively put Enterprise in the past of The Next Generation.

Voyager also made several references to events from the First Contact movie, and also crossed over with TNG, DS9 and referenced TOS at several points - putting them all in the same future history (countless in-universe continuity issues aside)

 

[Paul Weaver]

One inconsistant with Enterprise itself. Recall "In a Mirror, Darkly", where a Constitution-class starship smashed through 22nd century human and Andorian ships like tin foil?

But In a mirror darkly was set in an alternate timeline -- the Evil-Cochrane obviously wasn't the one seen in First Contact.

And included information about "our" Archer and Hoshi in the database (and I'm going by what was said, not illegible screen graphics) Or the finale, which definitively put Enterprise in the past of The Next Generation.

Lets make the assumption that the Defiant in In a Mirror Darkly was the same defiant from the same universe as TOS. Lets also throw in the on-screen shot of First Contact (2061), which was the pre-FC accepted date for TOS, and ties in nicely with the young looking Cochrane (in FC it's a bit of a stretch to think he was only 33).

In that case, perhaps the fork was further back? While Voyager in Futures End existed in a universe that was more advanced that ours back in 1996 (perhaps due to 29th century technology, but there was a model of a DY-100 ship in Rain's office). That world was one which could have easilly led in to a TOS universe which has a youthful 31 yearold Cochrane performing the first warp flight in 2061.

There's no doubt that Archer and the Enterprise NX1 existed in the same timeline that a fat Riker encountered phase cloaking technology.

Voyager also made several references to events from the First Contact movie, and also crossed over with TNG, DS9 and referenced TOS at several points - putting them all in the same future history (countless in-universe continuity issues aside)

We know from the alternative universe from Mirror Mirror onwards, but especially in DS9, that there seems to be something that binds the specific Spock-Goatee and our universe, more so than repeated crossings (how likely is it that all the main cast from ENT, TOS, DS9 and Tuvok, would come to exist - the chances are uncalculable. Literally. A single sperm being slightly off course at some point in the previous 400 years for any of the ancestors of any of the characters we saw would have prevented them from existing)

The alternate universe storylines in TOS/DS9/ENT (not neccersarilly TNG though) are the biggest proof of a higher power (God, Q, Wesley) existing across the multiverse.

 

[Cyke101]

Kirk deciding to enlist in Strfleet.

If he wanted to be an officer, why was he enlisting?

George Kirk's actions perhaps indirectly helped Starfleet upgrade its tech (via informatioon carried by the shuttles)

Some fans mention this a lot it seems, but is there any on screen evidence that the shuttles even did this?

No there isn't, and that's why I say "perhaps." But in my mind, information gathering is more than just transmitting data across gulfs of space, but also recordings, data storage, and personal testimonials (of the passengers and hey, maybe they brought a couple tricorders or PADDs or flash drives). It may be unofficial, but I wouldn't put it past anyone to do.