Star Trek Maps (1980)
- Thread starter Darkwing
- Start date
Molly O'Brien seems to age quickly chronologically, regardless of whether she does so biologically. That is, she's born on SD 45156.1, around 2367-68, but is already eight years old in "Time's Orphan", at the end of DS9 S6, around SD 51800-51900 and thus (early?) 2374'ish.
Sounds like the O'Briens started counting in Bajoran years, which we know aren't in complete synch with Earth/stardate ones (the Gratitude Festival falls on different times of the season on different seasons) and probably are shorter (Sisko thinks the fourth anniversary of Wolf 359, which was fought around SD 44000, is around SD 47330).
There are a couple of other such cases not involving putative Bajoran years, too.
Timo Saloniemi
Sounds like the O'Briens started counting in Bajoran years, which we know aren't in complete synch with Earth/stardate ones (the Gratitude Festival falls on different times of the season on different seasons) and probably are shorter (Sisko thinks the fourth anniversary of Wolf 359, which was fought around SD 44000, is around SD 47330).
There are a couple of other such cases not involving putative Bajoran years, too.
Timo Saloniemi
If there are one or two such isolated instances, they're the exceptions to the overall pattern. Trek writers never acknowledged time dilation as a factor. Whenever characters mentioned time intervals, they referred to them as absolutes, never qualifying them with anything like "relative to this ship" or something. The Earth calendar year was repeatedly stated and it always corresponded to the real-life time interval -- it was 2364 at the end of TNG's first season in 1988, and it was 2379 in the final TNG movie in 2003.
TV writers in general tend to assume their shows unfold in real time, because they don't want to confuse the audience with a discrepancy between the real interval and the in-story interval. So they certainly don't want to confuse the audience even further by bringing in time dilation, something the majority of the general TV audience wouldn't understand at all. Mentions of time dilation in SFTV are exceedingly rare. Stargate used it a few times, and Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda used gravitational time dilation (to an unrealistically exaggerated degree) to suspend its main character in time for 3 centuries at the start of the series; and apparently there's a show called Starhunter that made use of the idea. But Star Trek never did, not onscreen.
I worked out that 1 Bajoran Year = .831775 Earth Years. Molly is 8 Bajoran years old and stardate 47329.4 in the DS9 episode Second Sight is the 4th anniversary in Bajoran Years.
In the episode clues it's mentioned that Federaion time bases are used to keep track of time, but sensors can use stars to obtain the passage of time when timebases are unavailable such as the Delta Quadrant or Gamma Quadrant or when communication with said bases are to far for instant communication. The nearest ones are of course always used.
the memory alpha website they made an error in Seven of Nines birthdate. According to the episode Dark Frontier II, Seven of Nine was 4 years old when she was take by her parents for the long journey aboard the USS Raven and the Episode Scorpion II states that Seven had been assimilated for 18 years, the episode Scoprion II takes place in the year 2374. This means that Seven was assimilated in 2356 and since her parents tracked a Borg vessel for approximately 3 years it means she was taken on the Raven in 2353. This means that Seven was born in 2349 and not 2350 as stated in memory alpha. Also, Memory Alpha itself states Seven was 4 years old in 2353 which means Memory Alpha itself is incorrect as far as giving the 2350 birth date for Seven of Nine.
Frequently.
MA is great when it comes to dishing up info directly from the show, where the site gets in trouble is the area of analysis and extrapolation, people writing the articles start offering their own opinions as if they were canon facts.
Why not correct Memory Alpha rather than go over it here? It's a wiki, you're supposed to change it when you find a mistake.
I didn't know that was possible but now that I do I will correct them. In any I thought it was an interesting point of contention to out to the forum.
Why not correct Memory Alpha rather than go over it here? It's a wiki, you're supposed to change it when you find a mistake.
I didn't know that was possible but now that I do I will correct them. In any I thought it was an interesting point of contention to out to the forum.
I decided that the stardate of 40759.5 is the commissioning date of the Enterprise and stardate 41025.5 is the launch date. Also, as far length of time is concerned, there are several interpretations. For example, if a character states that a certain event occurred 3 days ago, it could be star days, Earth days, or local planetary time days. Perssonel are able to determine which interpration a character is using. This can account for some of the discrepencies, inconsistencies but not all of them.Your question was where Stardate 41025.5 come from, wasn't it?
I don't think anyone ever suggested that non-readable text should be taken as canon. However, that is the source of the number.
Speaking which, here is an excellent recreation of the plaque from Dave-Daring (http://dave-daring.deviantart.com/gallery/50078952/USS-Enterprise)
I just checked the Dedication Plaque's launch date as shown in the 1999 edition of The Star Trek Encyclopedia (written by the Okudas) which has a date of 40759.5 for the launch date. Just thought I should mention it. Not sure what the latest edition says, still waiting on my copy.Your question was where Stardate 41025.5 come from, wasn't it?
I don't think anyone ever suggested that non-readable text should be taken as canon. However, that is the source of the number.
Speaking which, here is an excellent recreation of the plaque from Dave-Daring (http://dave-daring.deviantart.com/gallery/50078952/USS-Enterprise)
As far as I've heard from others that picked up a copy in the Trek Lit forum, the latest edition didn't change any existing text, only added new. (Even known errors weren't fixed.)
what are some of the errors?
There's some listed in Dukhat's post here. There's also the occasional lack of changing prime-universe information in older articles that came out between the third and fourth editions; it still dates TMP to 2271 from an assumption that the 5YM ended in 2269, for example, despite "Q2" stating it ended in 2270.
Icheb also told Janeway that kirk's five year mission ended in 2270
You resurrected an old thread to restate what Idran said regarding the episode Q2?
Please don't tell me there are "thread necromancy" rules here on TrekBBS?
As long as the poster has something new to add, it's generally OK
This was not new, it literally restated what the quoted post said.
Similar threads
