Daystrom Institute

675 readers

61 users here now

Welcome to Daystrom Institute!

Serious, in-depth discussion about Star Trek from both in-universe and real world perspectives.

Read more about how to comment at Daystrom.

Rules

1. Explain your reasoning

All threads and comments submitted to the Daystrom Institute must contain an explanation of the reasoning put forth.

2. No whinging, jokes, memes, and other shallow content.

This entire community has a “serious tag” on it. Shitposts are encouraged in Risa.

3. Be diplomatic.

Participate in a courteous, objective, and open-minded fashion. Be nice to other posters and the people who make Star Trek. Disagree respectfully and don’t gatekeep.

4. Assume good faith.

Assume good faith. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt, but report them if you genuinely believe they are trolling. Don’t whine about “politics.”

5. Tag spoilers.

Historically Daystrom has not had a spoiler policy, so you may encounter untagged spoilers here. Ultimately, avoiding online discussion until you are caught up is the only certain way to avoid spoilers.

6. Stay on-topic.

Threads must discuss Star Trek. Comments must discuss the topic raised in the original post.

Episode Guides

The /r/DaystromInstitute wiki held a number of popular Star Trek watch guides. We have rehosted them here:

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

"Time pushing back" as a valid explaination? (startrek.website)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

SNW S2E02 introduce a new quirk of the canon: The time "push back", such that there will be some events (let's just call it Canon Event) that will always come about in Prime Timeline, albeit in different actual time. Aside from the aforementioned Eugenic War, I can think of a few other so-called "inconsistency", such as how there are already Cloaking technology for both Romulans and Klingons before Kirk's mission, despite TOS dialogue implies that Romulan first got cloak during Kirk's mission, and then transfer technology to Klingon. (I think the current explaination is different cloaking technology, which have various quirks.)

So here's the question: Under what situation would you consider "Time Pushback" being an acceptable explaination for discrepancy??

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't hate it. It makes room to tell new "old" stories without just completely dismissing canon. The idea of a "fixed point in time" is a concept that I think originated with Doctor Who. The Strange New Worlds concept is similar, but instead of a fixed point its a fixed event or fixed outcome.

I do wonder though, how much of this "time pushing back" is actually that? Or is it actually just the "Federation Time Cops" from the far future making sure things happen even if someone successfully meddles with history. I actually kind of hate the concept of time travel being a thing in Star Trek. Leave it to shows like Doctor Who.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

A fixed point in time is literally called a ‘time crystal’ in physics.

Now that’s theory that developed after Dr Who put it out into the global conversation, much as Albucierre’s Warp theory and Star Trek. It doesn’t make it any less a completely valid science fiction explanation.

In terms of time pushing back, entropy comes into it. Pushing an essential event further down the time stream should be harder, but pushing it to an earlier date would be orders of magnitude harder. Eliminating the event altogether and forking the time steam into a new course will be much more difficult than either.

It can be argued that First Contact is classic example of time pushing back. While the Enterprise was able to ensure the first warp flight happened in the very narrow window, there were slippages in the details around the event regardless of the preservation of the date. The Prime Universe timeline was overwritten, just not as obviously as in a change of a calendar date.