So in this episode they go into a cave, and can read some sort of energy field, as well as Troi having a sense that there are lifeforms present. Geordie explains that the people must be displaced in time, but only by a few milliseconds. If thatā€™s true, how is there not overlap? Say the people are a few milliseconds ahead of the enterprise when they arrive, shouldnā€™t they appear a few milliseconds later, as they still would have had to be ā€˜presentā€™ during that time? I donā€™t understand how they would be consistently invisible if time is a dimension like space that can be traveled through. Some past (or future) version of them would be present regardless of the desynchronization would they not?

Please if anyone could help me understand or shed some light on this Iā€™d appreciate it.

  • rah@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    Ā·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You wonā€™t be able to make sense of it because the idea is just some nonsense words made up by writers as a means of allowing the story they wanted to tell to be told. It doesnā€™t make sense because itā€™s writing, not science.

    Edit: fascinated by the downvotes.

    • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      Thereā€™s a lot of made up nonsense in star trek, sure, but thereā€™s also a reason they call it ā€˜scienceā€™ fiction. I guess my question had two points. Firstly to see if anyone more knowledgeable than ne could either confirm that itā€™s nonsense or give me a way that itā€™s actually potentially possible based on some legitimate scientific theory, or secondly, like the other person said, just to see how people could use their creativity to explain away the inconsistency in universe.

      • rah@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        if anyone more knowledgeable than ne could either confirm that itā€™s nonsense or give me a way that itā€™s actually potentially possible based on some legitimate scientific theory

        Ah, an actual answer.

    • Lumidaub@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      The downvotes are because what you wrote is pointless. We all know itā€™s made up and in the end there is no actual, definitive, real answer. Thatā€™s not what weā€™re here for. We are here for the creative exercise of finding an answer that fits the universe of the show and episode. You just shut down that creative process.

      • rah@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        We all know itā€™s made up and in the end there is no actual, definitive, real answer

        We are here for the creative exercise of finding an answer that fits the universe of the show and episode.

        OPā€™s question gives the impression that theyā€™re here for an actual answer.

    • williams_482@startrek.websiteM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      As other posters have pointed out to you, blithely dismissing OPā€™s question because they are asking about the meaning of ā€œnonsense words made up by writersā€ is completely missing the point of this community. We all know Star Trek is fiction constructed by writers; pointing that out while adding nothing else of interest is both pointless and boring.

      We donā€™t expect or require all answers to be from an in-universe perspective, but we do expect everyone to engage in discussion politely and seriously. If this is all you have to say on the subject, donā€™t comment.

      • rah@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        we do expect everyone to engage in discussion politely and seriously

        My response was both serious and polite. No idea what youā€™re talking about.