Monday, December 3, 2012
Time, Travel, And "The City On The Edge Of Forever?"
Please write a critique of The City On The Edge Of Forever using the Traveling Through Time and/or Carl Sagan Ponders Time Travel articles. Challenge at least one idea within your notes that the article seems to debunk or challenge. Please sdefend your response and use quotations to support. This blog response is due the day we finish viewing the film..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really enjoyed watching the Star Trek episode The City On The Edge Of Forever. It is amusing to see how Spock and the captain adapt to an environment that is so foreign to them. Also the captain is facing an inner struggle with Edith because he loves her and doesn't want her to die. The movie challenges the idea of how such a small action in the past can dramatically affect the future. All of the characters actions in the show change the future in dramatic ways. When Edith dies a part of the captain does as well, making the issue much more complex. When all of the characters return back to their time all the issues of the previous times were resolved.
ReplyDeleteI think tahat time travel is possible but if it truly is then why would it matter if we did the butterfly concept if in the future or in the present it won't make a difference because you did the effect therefore making the future as it was and should be. Plus I want peoeple to prove that the butterfly effect concept really will destroy our future or present or not.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of grandfather paradox was challenge in city on the edge of forever because of the part were the future is changed because one person didn't die when they were suppose to and that changed the worlds future.
ReplyDeleteThe article states that backwards time travel is not possible. The evidence they provide is that there is no "future men" walking around. Also if the past was altered then the future could change dramatically. The Film challenges this because the future is changed through the past, but two characters go back and set things normal again. And in the film the "future men" happen to be Curk and Spock.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of time travel can be complex to understand. Within this episode of time travel, we see that time traveling backwards can affect the outcome of the future and how just one person can affect the future. We witness that Edith believed so strongly in peace that she affecting the making of the Atomic bomb therefore forcing Germany to take over. Another concept that seems to challenge the reader is that everything does happen for a reason. This can be supported due to if you change one thing in future it can affect everyone else.
ReplyDeleteThis film used the butterfly effect in the plot, how one change affected the future of the entire world. It's interesting to see how everything is interconnected and that we're all significant.
ReplyDeleteFirst off Edith has to die because we have never had a female president (otherwise we couldn't has screwed things up this bad). Also, the man who found McCoy when he first arrived couldn't have been beamed back to the ship, and it also doesn't tell us where he went. Also, according to Carl Sagan, Edith had to die no matter what. Sagan said that time wants to keep it's shape. So whether they tried to save her or not she would have died...and Spock being his genius self, should have known that. What they were right on was the actual time traveling method. The machine/being that they found was the entrance to a worm hole...which Sagan says consists with the laws of physics.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed watching The City on The Edge of Forever because of it's themes of time travel, love and conflict within a group. It addresses the butterfly effect, with McCoy saving Edith and drastically changing the future. Kirk has a difficult choice to make due to his love for Edith but his knowledge that she must die. The seemingly small action of saving her changed the entire history of the universe, so Kirk had no choice but to let her die.
ReplyDeleteThe City on the Edge of Forever does not represent what Carl Sagan believes in or teaches. In the episode, three people travel back in time and change history, while Sagan believes that "It might be possible to build a time machine to go into the future, but not into the past." There is no way of telling who is right (for now), so either theories could be true or both even.
ReplyDeleteI though that the Star Trek episode "The City On the Edge of Forever" was an interesting story that posed some hard questions like the morality of time travel to the past. I thought that it was a good story because it made you thing about what can happen with time travel if you change one small detail. The grandfather paradox is slightly worrying because the idea of killing one wrong person and ceasing to exist because of one dumb change could be possible within the scenario in the episode.
ReplyDelete"The City On the Edge of Forever" makes the argument of who has the right to change what will happen in the future. In the episode, Dr. McCoy deleted himself from history. In the "Carl Sagan Ponders Time Travel" article it says that time travel into the past would make history "become an experimental science". Who, on Earth, has the right to determine what is going to shape history so that they can change the future. By deleting himself from history, Dr. McCoy, in this episode, has countered what Mr. Sagan said about time traveling into the past.
ReplyDeleteThe Star Trek episode showed a good example of the butterfly effect with the lady staying alive causes America to become a pacifist nation. Something that I question about the episode is that when time is changed and the Enterprise is gone, how is some of the crew still there on the planet if the Enterprise does not exist? Another thing to think about is what happened to the homeless guy that disappeared from that device that he takes from the surgeon.
ReplyDeleteThis Star Trek episode was very interesting, challenging many ideas. One was the idea of someone having to die in order to restore everything. It is an interesting concept because it deals with a sacrifice for the greater good, which is not something normally found in Science Fiction movies, but it really added to the story and went well with the plot.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Star Trek episode related a lot to the butterfly effect and how one change in the past could greatly alter the future. Something I question about the episode is, is having to die the way to restore everything that has been done? And I also question what happened to the man who took the device and time traveled.
ReplyDeleteThis Star Trek episode was interesting in their view of the question: If you change one event in the past, will it alter all future? The movie tells us that it will-When Spock and the captain go back in time, they realize that if they try and save Edith from her death, it will alter all of the future. Carl Sagan in the "Carl Sagan Ponders Time Travel" article says "It's still somewhat of a heretical idea to suggest that every interference with an event in the past leads to a fork, a branch in causality". Clearly Carl is not completely convinced of the philosophy the movie supports.
ReplyDeleteI found this movie fun, interesting, and thought-provoking. It leaves me wondering...Does changing a single event in the past alter all future??
This shows the fragility of time travel, and how easily one event can completely change the future. If time travel were to be accessible to all people today, it would be very dangerous. If any person had the ability to go back in time and change something, it would be crazy. Not every person would be able to let events happen exactly as they did in the past, therefore many changes would happen throughout the entire universe. The changes would even conflict with each other, and eventually it would become complete chaos.
ReplyDeleteThe show enacts the Butterfly Effect, the thought that even the smallest action could completely alter the future, while Sagan believes that not every small thing that happens in the past could make a different future and that just because one thing didn't happen doesn't mean that the future will change which is the interesting question posed at the end of the short story Soldier.
ReplyDelete