Some Random Guy
Striker
It was bad writing, or thick characters, Michael being the angel was their working hypothesis.Yes, but they never went with that story, so that scenario never existed and thus not bad writing.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was bad writing, or thick characters, Michael being the angel was their working hypothesis.Yes, but they never went with that story, so that scenario never existed and thus not bad writing.
They set the trap under the assumption it was Burnham and were surprised to see it was the mar.Yes, but they never went with that story, so that scenario never existed and thus not bad writing.
They set the trap under the assumption it was Burnham and were surprised to see it was the mar.
Tbf, it's a sci-fi show aimed at non-sciencey people so I can forgive the occasional scientific brainfart from the writers.
It might not break any Star Trek time laws but it certainly broke some real ones.It doesn't break any "time laws" either,
How would the crew of the Discovery know about Harry Kim's adventures?That doesn't make it a plot hole, it just makes it a miscalculation or wrong assumption by the crew just like many other times characters make mistakes. Remember this was based on the fact that they were convinced it was very specifically Michael's DNA.
It doesn't break any "time laws" either, as it's been demonstrated many times in 'Trek that time is not linear like that. For example you can have effect preceding cause, duplication loops, multiple timelines and even break the grandfather paradox. So there's no reason why Michael could not go back in time to free herself in a effect preceding cause situation.
Time and Again demonstrates something similar (but not exactly)
The only plot hole here was them being so certain that the DNA was Michaels, even today we can tell the difference between mother and daughter.
It might not break any Star Trek time laws but it certainly broke some real ones.
The first obvious one being that time travel into the past is literally impossible.
Yup.The crew thinking Michael was the Angel is exactly why she shouldn't have been let in on it.
I think he's got me blocked still, he didn't like me calling him a snowflake when he was crying about feminists or something.Yup.
There is. Although, without maths I probably couldn't explain it properly and I'm also way out of practice.Also there's nothing in science that says that reverse time travel is not possible.
Yes they do.The hands on a clock don't measure a "time line", they measure changes in state.
How would the crew of the Discovery know about Harry Kim's adventures?
The crew thinking Michael was the Angel is exactly why she shouldn't have been let in on it.
an ensign on the voyager franchisewho the feck is Harry Kim?
an ensign on the voyager franchise
he is very intelligentright so who cares about him then
he is very intelligent
same as watmorewho? Harry Kim? haway man he was on Voyager
There is. Although, without maths I probably couldn't explain it properly and I'm also way out of practice.
The gist of it... "time" doesn't exist. What we percieve as time is just measurement of change. A to B. Monday to Tuesday etc. are jrbitrary names we give to events in order to predict what will happen next. There is no "timeline" that you can travel along/through whatever. Time is a measurement of change. If nothing changed, "time" as we call it would stop. The hands on a clock don't measure a "time line", they measure changes in state.
The only way to travel backwards in "time" would be if you rearranged every particle in the Universe back to a previous state, including the particles in your own body/brain.
We can only ever go forward, never backwards.
Nope.Yes they do.
We know that QM is wrong, just as we know that relativity is wrong. Even the marriage of the two, QFT, is wrong. Not only are they both wrong, but they directly contradict eachother. QM states that time is made up of quanta and that objects exist in superpositions. Relativity states that time is relative to the observer and that objects are entirely localised. Direct contradiction between the two, yet we can use either to make some extremely accurate predictions.QM says
Nope.
Don't confuse our models of reality with actual reality. They're not the same thing.