This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Time travel- the new star trek movie
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
So far, Time Travel into the past seems impossible. You could "bascially" travel into the future by moving at speeds approaching the speed of light, but to travel into the past, one would need to go faster, and this is currently believed to be impossible (except through technicality, like wormholes). So there's no actualy theory about what would happen if you saw yourself in the past.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Ghoso
What boottspurr said is it. the new movie is a parallel universe now, where the events that unfold have only the origins of the original story line. The origins being everything up until Kirks father being killed. From that moment on, there is a divide, and the future of this new star trek universe may continue very differently from the series of event on the original tv show.
I see this as a justification to refresh the series (or the term being thrown around, a series reboot) with a new story while the original series remains in tact. no one can scream "retcon", because its an alternate universe, and both renditions would be "correct".
The old Spock's reality and his memories also remain in tact for the same reason, not only is he from another time, but from a separate universe where all that happened in the past is still true (aka, Vulcan still exists), and there is no science that can determine what would happen if you met your future self.
Post by
Skreeran
So there's no actual theory about what would happen if you saw yourself in the past.
Sure there are, there are plenty of theories on this.There are ideas about what would happen, but no scientific, evidence supported theories.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
A theory doesn't really need evidence to support it, it just needs to have an explanation (preferably logical) for a given observance or observances.
Yeah, it wouldn't be terribly scientific, but it would still be a theory.No, that's called a hypothesis. If it's based on evidence and is general understood to be true, then it can be called a theory, like Einstein's Theory of Relativity. ;)
But we digress...
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
282087
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Ghoso
Well im not too sure he wounld't have been teleported further back. But the ship starts to pull apart because of the immense gravity centering in the ship, opposed to the black hole being created adjacent to the ship, then having the ship enter it. The way i see it, the ship was damaged to the point of destruction by a black hole much more powerful than the first (assuming more red matter means stronger reaction), then sent back in time.
Post by
Erlinn
Why then did Nero's ship just get destroyed in that other black hole, and not get teleported back
further
in time?
Well im not too sure he wounld't have been teleported further back. But the ship starts to pull apart because of the immense gravity centering in the ship, opposed to the black hole being created adjacent to the ship, then having the ship enter it. The way i see it, the ship was damaged to the point of destruction by a black hole much more powerful than the first (assuming more red matter means stronger reaction), then sent back in time.
Plus, the Enterprise blow'd it up as it was going in.
According to time travel cannon the same matter cannot occupy the same space at different points in time.
Anything regarding time travel is a COMPLETE theory. Even though its basically physically impossible to do, if it was ever accomplished in some way, we could have absolutely no predictions on how it would work or turn out.
Post by
Laihendi
The real question is... is the new movie canon or not?
Post by
84594
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
So Laihendi is thinking that the new movie
isn't
canon.
Post by
ShadowSerpent
I do like the "alternate reality" hypothesis of time travel (although it's not new). Because it would be impossible to chance the past otherwise.
It would be a total paradox. Example: you go back in time to kill your past self so you don't make some huge mistake which dooms the entire world (yes I like using extremes). But when you kill yourself, you cease to exist. Since you do not exist, you can't go back in time to kill your past self, so you are not killed and remain alive.
And while this is an extreme, it counts for every problem. As soon as you fix it there wouldn't be any reason to go back in time because there won't be a problem to fix. You will not go back in time to fix it so it will still be there.
You could only chance the future if it was not intended, but here the chaos theory comes in (and I'm not going into that).
So the only legit form of time travel would be time tourism.
Unless you bring in the alternate reality hypothesis, or that the person who goes back in time will be unaffected by the changes (like Dr. Who =p)
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.