Star Trek : Discovery

Discussion in 'SMB' started by HebburnMackem, Sep 22, 2017.

  1. Some Random Guy

    Some Random Guy Striker

    It was bad writing, or thick characters, Michael being the angel was their working hypothesis.
     
    bigmarlon likes this.
  2. bigmarlon

    bigmarlon Midfield

    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.
     
  3. HebburnMackem

    HebburnMackem Striker

    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.
     
  4. bigmarlon

    bigmarlon Midfield

    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.
     
  5. niceonemarra

    niceonemarra Winger

  6. Some Random Guy

    Some Random Guy Striker

    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.
     
  7. HebburnMackem

    HebburnMackem Striker

    So your issue is that Star Trek is not real then, and not really about Michael specifically going back in time. Ok:D

    Also there's nothing in science that says that reverse time travel is not possible. It's just not feasible (yet)
     
  8. bigmarlon

    bigmarlon Midfield

    Yup.
     
  9. Some Random Guy

    Some Random Guy Striker

    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.
     
    bigmarlon likes this.
  10. bigmarlon

    bigmarlon Midfield

    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 perceive 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.
     
  11. niceonemarra

    niceonemarra Winger

    Yes they do.
     
  12. FootballFan

    FootballFan Striker

    who the feck is Harry Kim?
     
  13. niceonemarra

    niceonemarra Winger

    an ensign on the voyager franchise
     
  14. FootballFan

    FootballFan Striker

    right so who cares about him then
     
  15. niceonemarra

    niceonemarra Winger

  16. FootballFan

    FootballFan Striker

    who? Harry Kim? haway man he was on Voyager
     
  17. niceonemarra

    niceonemarra Winger

    same as watmore

    Kim won that most handsome poll
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2019
  18. HebburnMackem

    HebburnMackem Striker

    You're right that time is not this simplified linear stream that we all travel down and can take a measurement to see what the time is, but it does indeed exist and has a direction. It's part of the arrow of time, and shown with nucleonic decay and entropy which are at the heart of thermodynamics. Look at the half life of Uranium 232 for example, it has a half life that always decreases in one direction.. ie forward in time, not backwards and at a uniformly calculable rate. So essentially, time is a measure of entropy.

    Here's some good video about Entropy form PBS Space Time :

    As far as time travel (back) is concerned, QM says there's no reason at all why reverse time travel is not possible and QM likes to pat itself on the back by saying that it's observations are some of the most accurate in all of science.
    In fact this duality is at the very core of modern science and are part of Feynman diagrams which are paths through time, both forward and back.

    Again, the practicalities of doing with with a human who has mass makes things a lot, lot harder. But if you remember the red angel suit was covered in a quantum field.. which is a pseudoscience get-out-of-jail-card to fudge that it might means the suit is massless.. At that point it's all possible.

    Putting all of this aside for one second, time travel into the past has already happened, many times.
    If you take into account the observer effect and special relativity and that fast moving object have a different frame of reference and you'll know that things like ISS are actually receding in time compared to us in a very real way.
    This is why GPS satellites have to have their internal clocks adjusted. Not because they are wrong, but because time flows at a different rate for them.
    I know it sounds bonkers, but that is time travel into the past. However, it doesn't mean to say we can go back to 1900. It just means that future events can be ahead of other future events and due to relativity, one will see the other as moving into the past. Still travelling back in time, but in a different way. I think this is related to when it's said that you can't travel back in time before the time machine was invented.

    I was brought up with classic science telling us time travel was not possible, ever, at all.. nada. but I've seen that argument being born from quite naive assumptions, like for example assuming your trying to shove a spaceship through a wormhole with a lot of mass or something or from outdated physics before quantum entanglement was known (and demonstrated) like it is today, or the holographic principle, or virtual particles, or hawkin radiation etc.

    From what I've seen from modern physics and leading physicists there's no fundamental reason why going back in time is not possible, we just don't know how to do it practically yet with something with mass. Hawkin himself has changed his mind on this at least once, with the most recent opinion that it might be. It's a technical problem to potentially be overcome, not a fundamental fact or law of the universe (potentially!)

    Stephen Hawking says time travel could be possible one day. Here's how l Opinion
    (The article itself is shit, it's just his opinion it's here for)
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2019
  19. bigmarlon

    bigmarlon Midfield

    Nope.

    Don't confuse our models of reality with actual reality. They're not the same thing.

    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.

    So which is correct? Neither.

    At the end of the day time-travel backwards is just a fun thought experiment. Nowt more. Talk of wormholes and shite is just sci-fi. Time doesn't exist. It's a mathematical concept we use to put things in order. Things change, we measure the change and attach a label to it.

    Re: The Hawking article you posted. 1, he's talking about FTL travel, aka, time dilation, which in theory would allow us to travel "forward" in time relative to somebody else. We can do this now albeit on tiny scales. If you stand at the top of a staircase and I at the bottom then you'll be travelling through time slightly faster than me due to the extra gravitational force being exerted on me. What's happening is the gravitational force is interacting with the particles in my body causing them to move slower, thus ageing slower, meaning i'll experience time slightly slower than you. That's basic relativity. 2, it's a daft article in a magazine. I wouldn't read to much into it. You'll end up getting some bad ideas reading shit like that.
     
  20. niceonemarra

    niceonemarra Winger

     

Share This Page