Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Hi, I've been asked to pass this on...
"I've been working on a story and I found a stardate calculator at http://www.hillschmidt.de/gbr/sternenzeit.htm and I've found that there's no way that my story (or Abrams' universe) could exist, at least not unless both dates given in the movie (2233 and 2258.42) are years. If they are both years, then Kirk is 25 years old in 2258 and it works. BUT they refer to 2258.42 AS a stardate in the movie.
If we use Kirk's original birthdate (I say original because there are two more that I know of, one for Wrath of Khan and one for XI) March 22, 2233 is stardate -89780.82191780822. This tells us that Abrams used the year 2233, not the stardate. If one is a Stardate and one is a year like that, Kirk would 92 years old at the time of the battle of Vulcan as the Stardate 2258.42 = April 5, 2325, Time: 07:45:33; 2325-2233=92. Then, if they were both Stardates, Kirk would be an infant because Stardate 2233 = March 27, 2325, Time: 01:04:48. I'm sure that you can see where the problems come in, particularly if when you're making a story in the XI universe but want to stay true to Star Trek as a series. I am quite tempted to say that both are years, but that again puts me in another bind... such as what day and date did the battle of Vulcan occur? I suppose I could still use April 5th as the month and date. I understand Abrams just wanted to make it simpler for nontrek fans, but he also messed it up for the loyal Star Trek fans." - Anon
- Please see Stardate. In the new movie, stardates are the years in question. They don't work the same was as TOS, TNG, DS9, etc. As such, that stardate calculator is useless for the new movie context. -- sulfur 01:19, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Also, this stardate calculator is making assumptions that exclude at least some other stardates seen in "pre-Abrams" Star Trek, as the only system I know of that would allow for every stardate given is: first, non-canon since it comes from a book, and second, would involve hyperdimensional distance averaging, which I know this website isn't doing. This is just another "the new movie makes me [insert "negative" emotion] because of [insert "Abrams" reason]". I don't see why people can't realise the new film can potentially correct the greatest canon error in Star Trek, nay, science fiction: Picard being bald at Starfleet Academy in Nemesis. I mean really, the guy had to have hair at some point. :) - Archduk3 05:40, March 4, 2010 (UTC)