What's the recommended way of watching Star Trek?

[Gahars]

I started watching Babylon 5 since you mentioned it. We'll see how it goes.

On an unrelated note, I re-watched those episodes of TNG you cited (from Wikipedia) during our conversation about beaming torpedoes earlier, and neither episode you mentioned had anything to do with what we were talking about. Ain't no thang.

Whatevs, man, whatevs.

And glad to hear you're starting B5. Quick warning, though - Babylon 5 suffers from TNG-Syndrome. The first season is kind of weak and uneven - it struggles to deliver on its potential, but the promise is there. It takes a little while for the show to find its footing, and some of the episodes really, really suffer for it. (And you skip the pilot movie "The Gathering" outright - everything important from it is handily restated when it's necessary)

It also had to contend with a really low budget, and while the writing overall was very strong, it can't always mask the limitations.

It's definitely worth powering through, though - Like TNG, once it figures itself out, it's a blast all the way to the end. One of the reviewers from the AV Club is doing a retrospective on the series, starting with the First Season - he separates spoilers from the main text, so it can make a helpful viewing guide.

With all that said, enjoy the ride.

 

[XDel]

I suggest watching it while standing on your head, or while having a cat lick butter off your feet. I dunno why, but it helps.

Having said that, I feel that the best Star Trek movie experience can be had in the films with Spock and Kirk, all but Generations of course. That's just a badly made film all around.

Also I will warn you that Part 1 is PURE sci-fi. It is by no means and action film (like the latest incarnations). If you understand the method of getting them, I HIGHLY suggest watching the Fan Edit:

http://fanedit.org/ifdb/component/c...tings/fanfix/617-star-trek-the-v-ger-incident

Other than that, I honestly have to say that the new one was a breath of fresh air to me. Then again I'm more of a Star Wars fan that a Star Trek fan, so I am not as keen about keeping things in conformity with the written timeline in the books or what have you. Then again Star Trek never was that good about continuity.

 

[smf]

The Enterprise-C going back in time was going to create an alternate timeline with or without her. However, Tasha wanted her death to mean something, at least for once.

The whole point was to send Enterprise-C back so that the war never happened, if you're saying that the prime time line was created by sending Enterprise-C back then the paradox is that nobody in the Klingon War timeline could have any concept about it being wrong for Tasha to be alive, so she wouldn't have a reason for her death to mean something. I know why you want to explain the episode with multiple time lines, but the writers at the time wouldn't have agreed with you on that.

As for forward time travel, that depends on whether or not you're skipping over time in your own reality or merely transporting to an alternate reality that happens to be temporally ahead of your own.

Forward is less of a problem to explain as we're all travelling forward in time and it's entirely possible to slow down the local appearance of time. Transporting to an alternate reality is another case of magic.

A multiple realities interpretation of time travel allows time travel to make sense, and it can be applied to most (if not all) instances of time travel in Star Trek. It's also not as new a concept as you're implying.

It's relatively new, I don't think they mentioned it until parallels.

Asserting a paradox is magically resolved doesn't resolve the paradox.

Why not? It works for the multiple time line theory, which creates as many paradoxes as it solves.

Yes it is. And?

So they'll fix it like they fixed all the other problems like they did in the Temporal Cold War.

Perhaps you should re-watch the movie.

Why? Did they introduce some magic that meant that it was impossible to get rid of that timeline?

Having said that, I feel that the best Star Trek movie experience can be had in the films with Spock and Kirk, all but Generations of course. That's just a badly made film all around.

I agree the original cast movies from wrath of khan onwards are better than all the TNG cast movies.

Star Trek The Motion Picture has similar issues to the TNG cast movies. It's like an episode of the original series, strung out with dialogue and model shots (which is because that is exactly what it was). I do think it's worth watching as it was originally made, it's better than Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (which IMO is the worst of them all). Even Star Trek III: The Search For Spock has some redeeming qualities.

 

[Lacius]

if you're saying that the prime time line was created by sending Enterprise-C back then the paradox is that nobody in the Klingon War timeline could have any concept about it being wrong for Tasha to be alive, so she wouldn't have a reason for her death to mean something.

That's not what a paradox is.

Forward is less of a problem to explain as we're all travelling forward in time and it's entirely possible to slow down the local appearance of time. Transporting to an alternate reality is another case of magic.

I'd like to hear your rationale for calling it "magic." The concepts of time travel and alternate timelines seem to fit pretty well in the genre of science fiction.

Why not? It works for the multiple time line theory, which creates as many paradoxes as it solves.

Again, you don't seem to understand what a paradox is or how the multiple timelines approach resolves paradoxes and doesn't create any new ones. I'd like to hear a single example of a paradox caused by the multiple timelines approach. I'd also like to hear how you resolve the paradoxes of a single timeline approach (aside from saying "It's magic; who cares?").

Why? Did they introduce some magic that meant that it was impossible to get rid of that timeline?

Again, I think you need to re-watch the film. Pay close attention to the method of time travel used. You also still don't seem to understand that there's no "getting rid" of timelines.

 

[retKHAAAN]

ITT: Pseudo-geeks who are putting wayyy more thought into Star Trek time travel than the writers ever did.


Also,
Once you visit the past, you can never return to the same present due to chaos theory...

 

[Engert]

I thought this page was about Star Trek, which this is the only one i've seen while laying on my leather chair, having a beer (that's the recommended way of watching it by the way) but now i see that it's about time travel paradoxes.
Yes i'm interested. Looks like smf is having some trouble.
The video below should clear it up for you. To understand this video you must first be a Windows user and have a PHD in Quantum Mechanics. Once you got those, then it shouldn't be a problem to absorb all the info in this video.

 

[Lacius]

I thought this page was about Star Trek, which this is the only one i've seen while laying on my leather chair, having a beer (that's the recommended way of watching it by the way) but now i see that it's about time travel paradoxes.
Yes i'm interested. Looks like smf is having some trouble.
The video below should clear it up for you. To understand this video you must first be a Windows user and have a PHD in Quantum Mechanics. Once you got those, then it shouldn't be a problem to absorb all the info in this video.

Engert, your video has nothing to do with alternate timelines; it only deals with wave-particle duality.

 

[Engert]

I disagree.
It has everything to do with alternate timelines.

 

[Lacius]

I disagree.
It has everything to do with alternate timelines.

And are you able to articulate how?

 

[Engert]

I could but you didn't either. Okay let me start first.
An alternate timeline is actually an alternate universe. So to resolve time travel paradoxes such as 'you go back in time and kill your grandfather', when you come back to your present you will be in an alternate universe where your grandfather is dead but you're alive. And the reason how he died is not because you shot him but it's resolved in that universe by other means, such as he might have died from an accident. That's how everyone in that universe understands his cause of death.
So, all of this derives from quantum mechanics and it's a theory of course. What's not a theory and what's very real is that experiment that you see in the video is reproducible every time. We are just not smart enough yet to figure out why. Maybe in 1000 years? So from that arises the question, since matter can be a wave or a particle shouldn't the universe be a wave or a particle? Shouldn't the universe be here and there in the same time? Thus resolving time travel paradoxes.

 

[retKHAAAN]

I could but you didn't either. Okay let me start first.
An alternate timeline is actually an alternate universe. So to resolve time travel paradoxes such as 'you go back in time and kill your grandfather', when you come back to your present you will be in an alternate universe where your grandfather is dead but you're alive. And the reason how he died is not because you shot him but it's resolved in that universe by other means, such as he might have died from an accident. That's how everyone in that universe understands his cause of death.
So, all of this derives from quantum mechanics and it's a theory of course. What's not a theory and what's very real is that experiment that you see in the video is reproducible every time. We are just not smart enough yet to figure out why. Maybe in 1000 years? So from that arises the question, since matter can be a wave or a particle shouldn't the universe be a wave or a particle? Shouldn't the universe be here and there in the same time? Thus resolving time travel paradoxes.

That is the most retarded time travel theory I've ever been privy to...

 

[Engert]

That is the most retarded time travel theory I've ever been privy to...

This doesn't have all the movie glitter that you'd expect but it's just a theory based on some dudes who calculate integrals in their head.

 

[Lacius]

I could but you didn't either. Okay let me start first.
An alternate timeline is actually an alternate universe. So to resolve time travel paradoxes such as 'you go back in time and kill your grandfather', when you come back to your present you will be in an alternate universe where your grandfather is dead but you're alive. And the reason how he died is not because you shot him but it's resolved in that universe by other means, such as he might have died from an accident. That's how everyone in that universe understands his cause of death.

That's not even close to the alternate realities approach to paradoxical time travel. To use the grandfather example correctly:

• Timeline 1: No one arrives from the future to kill my grandpa (TL1) because no future exists for someone to arrive from. My grandpa (TL1) is alive to conceive my father (TL1) who conceives me (TL1). I (TL1) build a time machine (TL1) and travel back in time, and my actions form Timeline 2.
• Timeline 2: I (TL1) arrive from the future (of TL1) and kill my grandpa (TL2), which causes my father (TL2) and me (TL2) not to be born. The paradox is resolved because there are two realities.

So, all of this derives from quantum mechanics and it's a theory of course. What's not a theory and what's very real is that experiment that you see in the video is reproducible every time. We are just not smart enough yet to figure out why. Maybe in 1000 years? So from that arises the question, since matter can be a wave or a particle shouldn't the universe be a wave or a particle? Shouldn't the universe be here and there in the same time? Thus resolving time travel paradoxes.

Wave-particle duality and the superposition of particles has little if anything to do with alternate timelines as we're talking about them. The results of the double-slit experiment can in part be explained by a multiple worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but the double-slit experiment doesn't necessarily lead to a MWI conclusion. Not at all, in fact.

 

[retKHAAAN]

This doesn't have all the movie glitter that you'd expect but it's just a theory based on some dudes who calculate integrals in their head.

Just explain to me how the bolded portion I quoted from you above makes any sense whatsoever...

That's not even close to the alternate realities approach to paradoxical time travel. To use the grandfather example correctly:

• Timeline 1: No one arrives from the future to kill my grandpa (TL1) because no future exists for someone to arrive from. My grandpa (TL1) is alive to conceive my father (TL1) who conceives me (TL1). I (TL1) build a time machine (TL1) and travel back in time, and my actions form Timeline 2.
• Timeline 2: I (TL1) arrive from the future (of TL1) and kill my grandpa (TL2), which causes my father (TL2) and me (TL2) not to be born. The paradox is resolved because there are two realities.

Maybe I'm just daft, but I don't see the paradox there...unless you're for some reason seeing "timelines" like Back to the Future where Marty starts fading and forgetting how to play the guitar...

 

[tronic307]

There are also some TOS and TNG movies after each respective series ended. If I were you, I would watch the second TNG movie First Contact, which is a time travel movie revolving around the discovery of warp drive and interstellar space-travel in 2063 and setting the stage for Star Trek, and then I would try watching the series in either one of those orders.


Note: Some people who start watching Star Trek end up not appreciating The Original Series and skip all but the most notable episodes of it.


Enterprise does not take place in an alternate timeline. The alternate futures shown in Enterprise are the alternate timelines. The timeline of Enterprise is the prime timeline in which the following series take place.

Enterprise's timeline was contaminated by the Borg temporal incursion in First Contact. Also, Enterprise is the only series that would play out the same way in the Abramsverse.

 

[Engert]

Just explain to me how the bolded portion I quoted from you above makes any sense whatsoever...

Wretcaugh,
i will try to explain with as much as i know. I work with some of these people but i'm not one of them. These are all theories (which are based on something) which may be proved to be correct or incorrect hundreds of years from now. I will also try to answer some of Lacius points.
To make sense of this sentence
And the reason how he died is not because you shot him but it's resolved in that universe by other means, such as he might have died from an accident. That's how everyone in that universe understands his cause of death
just think for a minute that you are a three dimensional entity being sent to a two dimensional world. The people in the two-dimensional world don't look at space like you do. So if you see a person laying flat on the street walking about, you can then pull him out of his 2-d world, take him into your 3-d world, flip him and lay him flat on the street again. What you did here is flipped his heart from left side to right side. This would be considered unacceptable in the 2d world and all they see when you put your hand into their world is a distortion in their space time, they don't see your hand. So where i'm going with this is that the text in bold can be resolved by higher dimensions. 11 to be exact. Or 12 depending on the theory. So time-travel paradoxes are resolved by multiple realities existing in higher dimensions.
So again, these are just theories which i didn't make up, i just like them because they are based on something real, quantum mechanics which we don't understand.
Once we understand quantum mechanics then we can build mass relays to find out what happened to Protheans and hopefully not a shitty ending made by Canadians. (Last sentence is flamebait by the way )

 

[Lacius]

Enterprise's timeline was contaminated by the Borg temporal incursion in First Contact.

The short answer is no, that's not correct, but it depends on how you look at it. Because the Borg's temporal incursion didn't violate causality in any way (they failed), you have an infinite number of timelines that are occurring identically:

• Timeline 1: No Borg or Enterprise-E arrive from the future because no future has happened yet. The warp flight in 2063 is successful. The timeline happens very similarly to what we've seen in the prime timeline (the episode Regeneration doesn't occur, for example). In an effort to assimilate Earth in the past, the Borg go back in time. The Enterprise-E (probable) or another ship follows it in an effort to stop the Borg. Timeline 2 is created.
• Timeline 2: The Borg and the Enterprise-E (or another ship) come from the past and influence the first warp flight. The warp flight is still successful. The timeline happens very similarly to Timeline 1. The Borg of the present go back in time. The Enterprise-E (probable) or another ship goes back in time to stop it. Timeline 3 is created...

This keeps going, and because only minor changes are being made to the timelines, a state of "temporal equilibrium" is reached in which an infinite number of timelines all happen identically in contrast to the finite number of timelines (TL1, for example) that were different and/or didn't involve time travel. The events of First Contact are something like the Borg and Enterprise-E of Timeline 599423 going back in time and interacting with the past of Timeline 599424. The Enterprise-E's past likely includes the interactions they had with the past. Since there are an infinite number of identical timelines involving the interactions of the Borg and Enterprise-E from the future, there is a 100% chance that their past includes the things they were about to identically do in the past. Hopefully that makes sense.

Also, Enterprise is the only series that would play out the same way in the Abramsverse.

This is correct.

Wretcaugh,
i will try to explain with as much as i know. I work with some of these people but i'm not one of them. These are all theories (which are based on something) which may be proved to be correct or incorrect hundreds of years from now. I will also try to answer some of Lacius points.
To make sense of this sentence
And the reason how he died is not because you shot him but it's resolved in that universe by other means, such as he might have died from an accident. That's how everyone in that universe understands his cause of death
just think for a minute that you are a three dimensional entity being sent to a two dimensional world. The people in the two-dimensional world don't look at space like you do. So if you see a person laying flat on the street walking about, you can then pull him out of his 2-d world, take him into your 3-d world, flip him and lay him flat on the street again. What you did here is flipped his heart from left side to right side. This would be considered unacceptable in the 2d world and all they see when you put your hand into their world is a distortion in their space time, they don't see your hand. So where i'm going with this is that the text in bold can be resolved by higher dimensions. 11 to be exact. Or 12 depending on the theory. So time-travel paradoxes are resolved by multiple realities existing in higher dimensions.
So again, these are just theories which i didn't make up, i just like them because they are based on something real, quantum mechanics which we don't understand.

Nothing you've said in bold has any basis in reality or quantum mechanics.

 

[retKHAAAN]

Wretcaugh,
i will try to explain with as much as i know. I work with some of these people but i'm not one of them. These are all theories (which are based on something) which may be proved to be correct or incorrect hundreds of years from now. I will also try to answer some of Lacius points.
To make sense of this sentence
And the reason how he died is not because you shot him but it's resolved in that universe by other means, such as he might have died from an accident. That's how everyone in that universe understands his cause of death
just think for a minute that you are a three dimensional entity being sent to a two dimensional world. The people in the two-dimensional world don't look at space like you do. So if you see a person laying flat on the street walking about, you can then pull him out of his 2-d world, take him into your 3-d world, flip him and lay him flat on the street again. What you did here is flipped his heart from left side to right side. This would be considered unacceptable in the 2d world and all they see when you put your hand into their world is a distortion in their space time, they don't see your hand. So where i'm going with this is that the text in bold can be resolved by higher dimensions. 11 to be exact. Or 12 depending on the theory. So time-travel paradoxes are resolved by multiple realities existing in higher dimensions.
So again, these are just theories which i didn't make up, i just like them because they are based on something real, quantum mechanics which we don't understand.
Once we understand quantum mechanics then we can build mass relays to find out what happened to Protheans and hopefully not a shitty ending made by Canadians. (Last sentence is flamebait by the way )

And where are you getting a "2-D" world from?

 

[Engert]

And where are you getting a "2-D" world from?

Well the 2d world is something we can relate to since we are higher dimension beings. So if there was a 2-d world with people living in it, you'd be God.
What we don't understand so far is dimensions higher then 3 or 4 if you include time. So the 2d example is used to explain something that appears magical like the text in the bold above.

 

[Lacius]

Well the 2d world is something we can relate to since we are higher dimension beings. So if there was a 2-d world with people living in it, you'd be God.
What we don't understand so far is dimensions higher then 3 or 4 if you include time. So the 2d example is used to explain something that appears magical like the text in the bold above.

Saying something that doesn't make sense and then saying "I don't know how it makes sense but anything is possible," doesn't cause what you said to make any sense. I could claim that a trans-dimensional unicorn that burps time exists, and I could use the same rational you're using to defend that claim. That doesn't mean either claim makes sense.