Talk:Temporal science

Time travel

Why does "time travel" redirect here? Temporal mechanics and time travel aren't synonymous. For one thing, "time travel" covers technology, politics of messing with time, etc, while "temporal mechanics" is just a scientific field. -- Kingfisher 17:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because nobody has created an article that covers time travel without covering temporal mechanics, or vice versa. Information on the science behind temporal mechanics is extremely limited. Furthermore, the phrase "time travel" is used with much less frequency than "temporal mechanics". If you want to separate the information in this article into two separate ones, you're welcome to try. But the existing article is already a stub, so you'll have a lot of extra information to find. Hope you have an extensive DVD collection....

Commodore Sixty-Four^(talk) 03:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Future Guy was from the 28th century, not the 29th. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.144.151.36.

Split

I'd like to propose splitting this article and "time travel," as they are technically different things. I could create a well-crafted time travel article which could be expanded in the future. Thoughts? -Angry Future Romulan 22:42, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the above statement(and as such I've tagged the page). This seems to be turning into a general article about time travel, and not one about where the term temporal mechanics itself was used(which I believe was much less often). Time travel is currently a redirect to this article, but it could be turned into an article listing instances of time travel.--31dot 10:49, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

I would also agree. --Pseudohuman 07:59, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Split, quickly, before more anons decide to "fix" the links to here. - Archduk3 12:28, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Please! The one thing I truly 100% understand in Star Trek is temporal mechanics vs time travel. Unfortunately, most don't. Let's fix this before we confuse everyone else. B'Ellana fan 01:20, May 28, 2012 (UTC)B'Elanna_fan 19:17, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering, isn't temporal incursion and time travel synonymous. should all time travel stuff be merged to that article. --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:29, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Apparently not. That article claims that "time travel" is used to achieve "temporal incursion" (or, worded differently, that "time travel" sometimes leads to "temporal incursion"), but that doesn't mean they are synonymous. If there is a big overlap in content, and if there was only little content for individual articles, we could still talk about merging those entries, but not based on them being synonymous. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:50, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Seems sort of like "going through tunnels" results in "coming out from tunnels". I think in "Relativity" the synonymity is most clear with lines like "Your Captain has a knack for sticking her nose where it doesn't belong especially when it comes to time travel...That woman has been responsible for three major temporal incursions." --Pseudohuman (talk) 12:11, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Or is it like assassination, which can lead to one becoming the next emperor - without those terms being synonymous? The article clearly defines "temporal incursion" as an action where someone "uses time travel in an attempt to change history". That means that, if there's no intent to change history involved, it is not a temporal incursion even if time travel is used. If you want to argue that the terms are synonymous, the first step would be to get rid of that definition (which, in that case, must be wrong). -- Cid Highwind (talk) 12:18, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Done. Also it sort of says it in the name: temporal=related to time & incursion=to enter suddenly/forcibly. Also just being moved from one quantum reality to another was similarly called a quantum incursion in "Parallels". --Pseudohuman (talk) 16:37, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, having now read the transcripts for both episodes referenced, I disagree with the changed description. In the ENT episode, the term "incursion" is used exactly once, in this context:

The events that are taking place are the result of temporal incursions. They are not supposed to be happening.

In the VOY episode, "incursion" is used three times but a sort-of explanation comes with only one instance:

This Seven of Nine stopped Braxton, but she created several temporal incursions along the way. She instigated a phaser fight at Utopia Planitia, she was seen by you and Lieutenant Tuvok two years before she joined your crew, and she interacted with her past self in front of fifteen crew members at a Ping-Pong tournament approximately six minutes ago. Your time frame, of course.

Both times, the term "incursion" is used not for any random act of time travel, but specifically for those where the timeline was changed or some other problem was caused. It stands to reason that an act of time travel where nothing was changed would not have been called a "temporal incursion". If anything, a merged page should be located at time travel and have the current content of temporal incursion as a subsection explaining a specific form of time travel - but not the other way around. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:07, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

hmm. upon further consideration. it seems like it is a term for an "act of timeline alteration". --Pseudohuman (talk) 17:50, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

As not to create a lot of unnecessary duplicate information seems to me like there should be a sort of a three way split: time travel article should deal with methods and the few non altering examples of time travel, temporal incursion should list all the examples of timeline altering cases of time travel and temporal manipulation and this temporal mechanics should just be about the science of time. --Pseudohuman (talk) 05:44, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

I believe readers would expect to find a full list of "time travel actions" in one place, not several in different places based on some specific detail - which, by the way, we can't even be sure of in some cases. If timeline changes are not mentioned after some time travel event, must that mean that they definitely don't exist? Or could they just be minor enough to not instantly be noticed? We don't know, so we shouldn't arbitrarily split that list. --Cid Highwind (talk) 07:50, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

so all time travel events to time travel and info on how the timeline changed to temporal incursion if it is mentioned that it changed. ok. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:12, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

I'd say "if it falls under the definition of a 'temporal incursion' without speculation", since that still seems up for at least some debate - but other than that, yeah. Everything to time travel, and specific parts to the other. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 10:07, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Time dilation

Not sure if it would fit as 'canon material' but time dilation should probably be put in the 'temporal mechanics' page, as it definitely MUST have been a study at some point. Alpinedigital (talk) 13:58, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Time dilation would have to have been mentioned in an approved resource in order to be included; we only cover what was specifically stated/seen, not what "must have been", even if likely. 31dot (talk) 14:06, June 12, 2013 (UTC)