Wrong POV in the first sentences, needs to be rephrased. Also, at the moment seems to be more of an episode summary than information about the topic. Needs to be rewritten by someone who knows more about the episode than I do. -- Cid Highwind 14:44, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the scrutiny. I welcome it. Please be as helpful as you wish in the future. Check out my new review and see what you think. -- Madame Arsenic 17:18, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Removed the following parts:
- Unlike other parallel universes, such as the anti-matter universe, the mirror universe and the quantum reality, a negative universe seems to be scientifically flawed and used only for plot or visualization purposes.
- The negative universe is featured in the episode "The Counter-Clock Incident".
Both are examples of the "wrong POV" I mentioned. We are trying to write articles from an "in-universe point of view". I still think that this needs to be rephrased somehow, although I can't help here (not having seen the episode). -- Cid Highwind 12:18, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
warp 36 Edit
how many times the speed of light would warp 36 be?
- (1) You forgot to sign your post. (2) In the TOS, it most commonly accepted that the factor of c (speed of light) is the warp factor cubed (wf3). Therefore, Warp 36 would be 363c, or 46,656 × the speed of light. In the 24th century scale, it's something above Warp 9.99999. So it's really really fast...really really fast. - TerranRich 21:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Two different universes Edit
I just watched "Counter-Clock" the other day-- when was it ever referred to as being an "anti-matter universe"? They only called it a "negative universe". Aren't these two different things? -- Steve 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Captain's log, stardate 6770.1. Time continues to flow backward for us. We have set course for a dead star in this anti-matter universe that corresponds with the nova Minara in ours. We're being pulled by Karla Five's unmanned vessel, which is equipped with enough positive matter armament to ignite the dead star into life.
- Hope that answers your question :) --OuroborosCobra talk 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Not the same place Lazerus was fromEdit
The article suggests that the universe seen in "Counter Clock" was the same one that Lazerus was from in "Alternative Factor". There is no evidence of this what so ever. One big difference is that the sky of the anti-matter planet in Lazerus's universe was blue with an apparent normal sun shining in the sky. This goes against the black stars we saw in Counter-Clock. Probably needs to be corrected, maybe even split into two different articles. -FC 14:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think we should assume they are different universes based on effects alone. that would be dangerously close to nitpicking. perhaps just a note it is not clear if the parallel antimatter-universes were different or the same etc. --Pseudohuman 14:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
By rules of canon, it is never implied at all that Lazerus was from the same universe that we see in counter clock. It is actually an assumption to state it is so, which we can't do. By rules of this site, we have to assume they were different universes unless there is a line in dialouge or some other mention in canon that the universe seen in counter clock was the same one Kirk visted in "Alternative Factor". A possible solution would be to split this article into two different sections. -FC 16:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. It's true "Counter-clock" did imply it was the first encounter with that particular parallel universe. Both are given many explicit names. They are both called "negative universe" and "antimatter universe". But only Lazarus' universe is called: "minus universe" and only Karla's universe is called: "reverse universe". So if we want to give them names to differentiate them, I think those are it. Perhaps the split should be into three pages, this article should stay as a "type of parallel universe"-page describing the common traits of universes where antimatter is the basis of oridinary material and link to the two different example articles. Or we could simply have the two examples as subsections and keep all the info on one page. --Pseudohuman 04:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Sub-sections would be best for now and splitting into several pages would be confusing to readers and someone might come along in a year or two and just merge them right back together again. -FC 13:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Corrected the article. --Pseudohuman 23:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see how having separate pages would be any more confusing then having these seemingly separate universes on the same page. This page could just contain links to the separate pages; and while I do understand that both those pages would be rather small, we do have literally hundreds of small articles. - Archduk3 16:54, July 26, 2010 (UTC)