Recommended Posts

I’m a little disappointed with the finale.  I don’t think it’s believable that romulan fleet would just turn back so easily after hundreds of years of believing something. 

 

i would have liked to have seen that advanced AI in the portal come through, but if they’re watching and so powerful why did they need to be invited in and need the portal to stay open. I mean, say they did successfully destroy the transmitter, would they just say “well guess they don’t need our help”..

 

 

  • Like 2
12 minutes ago, DramaInc said:

I’m a little disappointed with the finale.  I don’t think it’s believable that romulan fleet would just turn back so easily after hundreds of years of believing something. 

 

i would have liked to have seen that advanced AI in the portal come through, but if they’re watching and so powerful why did they need to be invited in and need the portal to stay open. I mean, say they did successfully destroy the transmitter, would they just say “well guess they don’t need our help”..

 

 

The finale was confusing and now that Picard is basically a synthetic, now what?

2 hours ago, DramaInc said:

I’m a little disappointed with the finale.  I don’t think it’s believable that romulan fleet would just turn back so easily after hundreds of years of believing something. 

 

i would have liked to have seen that advanced AI in the portal come through, but if they’re watching and so powerful why did they need to be invited in and need the portal to stay open. I mean, say they did successfully destroy the transmitter, would they just say “well guess they don’t need our help”..

 

 

First point: They almost didn't, they were going to engage Starfleet's ships until the transmitter was powered down and it seemed obvious they were outgunned as well.  

 

Second point: Remember the sphere builders from Enterprise? They needed help from our side in order for them to come through, what I saw from the episode looked almost exactly the same or at least the same idea.

Personally, I thought that finale was utterly glorious.  If you watch sci-fi to pick holes in plots then that's fine - I watched it for enjoyment and absolutely was not disappointed.

 

Comments like "Can someone please tell me just WTH just happened there?" and "The finale was confusing" - it really wasn't hard to follow.

  • Like 4
Spoiler

Going easy on this one (as opposed to binge watching).  Just watched E07 last night - by far the worst episode of the season - and absolutely hated it as it was too soapy and cheesy for my taste.

 

Glad to know you guys liked the finale. My faith has been restored.

 

So, if I understood what they told Picard,

he is not really a 'synth' in the sense that he has any extra powers, etc, but they simply transferred his mind into a new body that will still die based on the estimated live he had left prior to this brain issue.

Did I miss anything?

6 hours ago, jnelsoninjax said:

So, if I understood what they told Picard,

  Hide contents

he is not really a 'synth' in the sense that he has any extra powers, etc, but they simply transferred his mind into a new body that will still die based on the estimated live he had left prior to this brain issue.

Did I miss anything?

Nope, that's spot on. Basically it's a McGuffin to do away with his brain abnormality.

 

  • Thanks 1

Was a predictable ending with the synths/big baddie. Wrapped up a little fast to me. Glad we got some Data closure, how it was handled in Nemesis was terrible. Hope we hear more about the omnipotent androids, have a feeling it's control based. 

 

Having Picard as a synth initially was off putting, really cheapened his death, and he did die. The synth is a clone. Not Picard. They specifically said they mapped an image of his brain and overlaid it on. Would have preferred them using terms like transferred or moved as opposed to copied.

 

Happy Seven got back on track. All in all a solid series.season, slow burn and then a too fast ending. B+.

Overall I loved the season.

 

Spoiler

Even though I kinda wished that Data would have been resurrected, but I knew the gollum was for Picard.  Brent Spiner is officially done playing the character, https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/star-trek-picards-brent-spiner-play-data/
 

I’m hoping that whatever was coming through the portal is going to be a repeat of the Borg and decide to find a way to the Alpha quadrant.

 

10 minutes ago, primortal said:

Overall I loved the season.

 

  Hide contents

Even though I kinda wished that Data would have been resurrected, but I knew the gollum was for Picard.  Brent Spiner is officially done playing the character, https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/star-trek-picards-brent-spiner-play-data/
 

I’m hoping that whatever was coming through the portal is going to be a repeat of the Borg and decide to find a way to the Alpha quadrant.

 

Spoiler

 

Never really stated how the borg was created.  Glad they put closed the loop on what happened after Nemesis, but hoping fora Borg origin story.

 

 

8 minutes ago, techbeck said:
  Hide contents

 

Never really stated how the borg was created.  Glad they put closed the loop on what happened after Nemesis, but hoping fora Borg origin story.

 

 

I always wanted them to tie V’Ger to the Borg.  After Decker merged with Ilia, the “human condition” tainted the machine planet resulted in the creation of the Borg.

 

I think that Discovery might pave the way to the creation of the Borg.

17 hours ago, Nogib said:

I didn't have any real big issue with the way it wrapped up things.  Only thing I didn't really like was the "magic tool that just does whatever you think in your head"

That was it's biggest issue - a complete deus ex machina and was just poor writing!

Something I wanna discuss/clarify in the finale (because I'm a nerd lmao) ....

 



The class of ship Riker (and the Federation Fleet) was using ... Arbiter (description and images) hull + Avenger (description and images) saucer section from Star Trek Online? Sort of a kitbash of the two?

6 hours ago, Human.Online said:

That was it's biggest issue - a complete deus ex machina and was just poor writing!

They could have used the Borg ship as fodder against the Romulans instead of inserting a macguffin to pull off a duplicating ship illusion. It was there the whole time and the writers overlooked it.

1 hour ago, jpqf said:

They could have used the Borg ship as fodder against the Romulans instead of inserting a macguffin to pull off a duplicating ship illusion. It was there the whole time and the writers overlooked it.

I was wondering if the hanmdheld-doodad could be asymlilated by the bube to use the tech to repair itself

4 hours ago, Unobscured Vision said:

Something I wanna discuss/clarify in the finale (because I'm a nerd lmao) ....

 

One had a very BSG looking hull to it's saucer section

2 hours ago, Human.Online said:

I was wondering if the hanmdheld-doodad could be asymlilated by the bube to use the tech to repair itself

I think the Borg ship shouldn't have been crashed in the first place. It's been well established that one Borg ship is a colossal power against any races fleet of starships. The Artifact is a half broken ship so that gives the writers leeway to gimp the power level as they see fit. It's still kind of silly that the flower things could take down the Artifact but I digress. It could have been left in orbit and the story doesn't play out much different. The Romulans show up. The cube is just powerful enough to buy time. The Romulans cause enough damage to the cube to result in crashing to the planet. Same end result without having to use a deus ex machina device. 

 

If Leonard McCoy is anything to go by (last seen at age 137 in TNG) Picard's natural lifespan should last another 40 years. 😄 Not sure if Patrick has the energy for that, although he is only 14 years behind his character and still going strong.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!