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 factsEdit
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 --188.8.131.52 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. --184.108.40.206 15:35, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- 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.
"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. --220.127.116.11 19:32, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- All done. :) --From Andoria with Love 20:42, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I do have a problem with one line in this entry;
"Time is often regarded as the fourth dimension; however, for the most part, time progresses on its own in one preferred manner."
Time is linked with space, and changes along with it. Time often slows or quickens because of changes in space. In fact, the time experienced by people at sea level is different than the time experienced by people on a mountain top.
It also doesn't necessarily move along in a single direction. There are many scenerios where arrows of time can be reversed. One such time may be at the end of universal expansion, where the thermo-dynamic arrow of time may reverse.
Also, for those of you arguing about whether or not any of this has a canon reference... would you rather have a stupid red link? Keras 22:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
But it still is the fourth dimension.
This article seriously needs some work. A lot of it is just comments/speculation vs. in-universe fact. — Morder 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I removed all the uncited information; it's been marked as such for nearly 2 years. The first two paragraphs are irrelevant to Trek:
- An important consequence of the perception of time as another dimension is that traveling backwards in time is possible. Just as one can change direction in space (say, go left instead of right) one is able to traverse time in a similar manner.
- As for the third paragraph, it should be rewritten from scratch IMO with citations to form the body of the article:
- At this time, the Federation has very limited experience in the controlled traversal of time. Most of the time travel was either accidental or caused by the intervention of a technologically superior species. Current Federation doctrine, namely the Temporal Prime Directive, prohibits using time travel to alter the past.
- And this note is just nitpicking:
- – Cleanse 11:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be great if this page contained links to all episodes involving time issues. I'm sure someone already has such a list and that is why I'm not making it myself, as it would take me a lot of time. I think many people particularly enjoy this kind of episodes which make the Star Trek series so unique, and they may wish to review only those episodes from time to time. Dan adrian 11:29, December 31, 2009 (UTC)