PNA-cite necessary?
I don't think this page really needs the pna-cite message. The short explanation likely has no direct Trek reference, but this page is more important as a "hub page" linking to several aspects of temporal mechanics, time travel etc. that do have references. The introductory explanation could perhaps be shortened a little, but doesn't really hurt as-is. -- Cid Highwind 18:23, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Disagreement with non-canon facts
Sorry, but I disagree with the way the article explains time when comparing it to space. See, you CAN move left and right in space, but you are always moving a positive distance no matter what direction you travel. If you walk backwards 5 feet, the you have still travelled +5 feet from your original reference point. Not -5 feet, which is impossible. Time cannot be compared to motion, because motion is the changing of a piece of matter from one location in space to another. Time is just the observation of that change. Whether time runs forward or backward, the object itself is still moving a positive distance. Sorry if I made some of your heads explode, but that's just what I think. (edit)sorry forgot to include my sig --141.157.14.187 03:25, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- BANG!!! (Perhaps you could give us an alternative way to explain the whoe time/space comparing thing? Or are you just saying remove it entirely?) --From Andoria with Love 09:44, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Well, according to current theories, time and space are one and the same, called "spacetime". It is basically a container for events that happen inside our own universe, such as the orbit of a planet, or clapping your hands, all happen within spacetime, with 2 properties associated with it: the location of the event in space, and the location of the event in time. Currently, it is not believed that time can flow "backwards", just as you cannot go "backwards" a negative distance from your original starting point. Time, like space, always moves in a positive direction. However, certain theories exist where this may be circumvented, such as wormholes. Wormholes allow you to travel great distances in normal space with no actual positive motion from your own reference point. The same can go for time. You cannot travel "backwards" in the normal sense through time, but you CAN "jump" to different parts of the timeline, whether they are in the past or future. So, I conclude that spacetime always moves forward, but you can jump to certain points within it. The only other way I know where time travel would be possible (into the future only, again, never backwards) is if you were accelerated close to the speed of light and experienced time dilation as put forth by Einstein.
(offtopic fun fact) Even though it's not noticeable, you go through time dilation every day. When you drive a car or walk down the street, or even the Earth's motion through space, you experience a very VERY small rate of change of time progression, probably down to to the 0.000000001's (or even more smaller) of a millisecond. --141.157.14.187 15:35, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- This article needs to reference how time works in Star Trek. People have traveled forward and backward in time with the aid of time portals, time warps, space warps, temporal causality loops, chroniton radiation.
- Despite your conclusions, time has also been shifted to move backwards in Star Trek, both through distortion fields ("Timescape") and a phenomena called anti-time. These all need to be referenced here, despite contradicting a "Real life" explanation of time, although each plot element may be accompanied by a note such as:
- While Star Trek has portrayed that time could be made to flow backwards due to xx technobabble, current physics do not allow for that interpretation of time.
On Memory Alpha, oddly enough, fictional science takes precedence over "real life" science, because we are mostly concerned with defining the fictional references first. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
"These all need to be referenced here, despite contradicting a "Real life" explanation of time, although each plot element may be accompanied by a note such as: 'While Star Trek has portrayed that time could be made to flow backwards due to xx technobabble, current physics do not allow for that interpretation of time. '" - I agree with this then. A note like this oughtta be put at the bottom somewhere, and maybe a wikipedia link to the real definition of time, since it is such a broad and interesting subject. --141.157.14.187 19:32, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- All done. :) --From Andoria with Love 20:42, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)