Fianna wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:20 pm
When you're in a setting with more than one person or party capable of time travel, you can run into some interesting repercussions.
For example, suppose I do the "go back in time and kill Hitler before his rise to power" thing. As a result, a lot of people who would have been killed during World War II and the Holocaust remain alive. They have children, and their children have children, and so on and so on, till in the future there a lot of descendants of theirs running around who didn't exist before my time travel trip. Now suppose one of those descendants also gets their hands on a time machine, and decides to go back in time and save the dodo from extinction.
Even though the dodo went extinct centuries before my time travel excursion, I might return to the present after killing Hitler and discover that now dodo birds are common household pets, and be utterly confused about how that could have happened.
Good point.
Another thing to consider is that Spock came decades after Nero even though he was only seconds after him. In that same black hole, the supernova went in before Nero. By that reasoning, the supernova was coming out coming out on the other side for decades (maybe even centuries depending on how long it took to be sucked in) before finally stopping. Who knows what changes that could have caused.
As for the this new method of time travel works differently idea...doesn’t the movie sort of prove that? Vulcan got sucked in a new blackhole, going back in time, and nothing changed. Later, Nero went through another blackhole, though now on a heavily damaged ship, and again, nothing changed. It is possible they would not have made enough of a difference to notice, but that seems unlikely. New Kirk probably did Yet Another New Universe a big favor by firing on the ship. However, some of Nero’s crew probably survived through by shuttles or escape pods.
Kendrakirai wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:03 pm
Except that’s exactly what it does. Star Trek’s own internal rules of time travel state that travelers are protected from the changes they make, as are those who are in some way temporally shielded. Otherwise, changes made are *immediate*, no Back to the Future slow fade-outs, and there is only one actual timeline.
In my view, Star Trek (2009) is completely consistent (broadly) with time-travel as portrayed in TOS.
(TOS was itself inconsistent - and even illogical! Beaming back Capt. John Christopher ["Tomorrow Is Yesterday"] into his jetplane a second after he first glimpsed the Enterprise is explained by Kirk as the ideal solution because "he [Christopher] wouldn't remember anything - because it never happened!" In other words: A mind-wipe!) Why their (the crew's) minds aren't also wiped is not explained!
Star Trek (2009) and its explanation of the effects of time-travel is perfectly consistent with time-travel as depicted in, e.g., "Yesteryear" (The Animated Series).
The only difference between ST (2009) and other episodes of, say, TOS is that in TOS, we (the audience) never got to really see and experience the alternate reality which time-travel could create. (The closest we come to that is viewing Nazi Germany winning WWII on the tiny viewscreen of Spock's jury-rigged tricorder.)
also hitler is actually proof that
1. Time travel is possible.
2. You can't use time travel to purposely change something.
We can be assured that time travel is possible because what's the first thing a time traveler would do upon discovering time travel? Try to kill Hitler. As demonstrated here, https://xkcd.com/1063/
Historians have discovered no fewer than 42 plots to kill Hitler and honestly that number is probably low, people plotting to kill Hitler would do best not to write down their plans.
I find it unconvincing to assume he got lucky 42 times in a row which begs the question how did he survive?
It seems clear that these plots were being organized by one or multiple time travelers who didn't understand rule 2.
By traveling through time with the express purpose of killing Hitler you're creating a paradox wherein if you succeed then past you wouldn't travel back to kill him. So to prevent the paradox Hitler must live. The only way to go back in time and kill Hitler would to do so by accident. Like for example art student time traveler goes back to study art in Austria in the 1910s and accidentally bumps Hitler in front of a car. No direct paradox exists because killing Hitler was never your intention. There maybe other problems though such as would you have invented the time machine when you did without the science advancement associated with ww2?
City on the edge of forever actually works here since Mccoy didn't go back to save Kirk's girlfriend rather he was just insane at the time.
Really the more rational coincidence would involve a timeline authority that's routinely doing their jobs around the shift for this case. If time travel is that common and we're still here, then there suggest some developed order surrounding temporal jurisdictions.
Time-travel does exist. There is no agency surveillancing it. The current timeline just happens to be the timeline that results from all time-travelling ever done.
"If you get shot up by an A6M Reisen and your plane splits into pieces - does that mean it's divided by Zero?
- xoxSAUERKRAUTxox
