Is it impossible to fathom that you could be psychic? That you could know the future, and influence the past? Through all of our achievements, from Prometheus stealing fire from the gods, to a single apple sparking theoretical science and forward-thinking civilisation, the idea that we can bend and break time has recurred through all of us. When we discovered Earth was round, when we attributed thunder and lightning to weather instead of gods, when we argued for evolution over creation, even when critical thinking became the norm, we still pondered the meaning of that inexorable and indefinable dimension: time.

Free-thinkers, philosophers and theoretical scientists are now exploring the nature of time in relation to space. People like Stephen Hawking and Dan Falk are proponents of the idea that we know very little about time. Can we wrap our minds around the idea that everything that will happen, has already and is happening? Or is it all part of the Grand Plan, laid down by a higher being or the nature of the universe itself?

Several modern schools of thought believe that time is not a line; it doesn’t begin at one point and end at another. I’m inclined to agree. If we truly appreciate time as the fourth (or fifth, or ninth) dimension, we must imply the same principle attributes we apply to all the others. Space is infinite. Why not time too? And here’s the really messy bit: if time is indeed infinite, there cannot have been a beginning. It must have come from somewhere, true, but never from the start. This would also work for the end. And seriously – do you honestly believe that something as mind-boggling and powerful as time itself (that truly undiscovered country) can be simplified by a clock?

Which brings me to the crux of it – if time has no beginning and no end, wouldn’t it be possible that it is simply another reference point for the universe to compute its Grand Plan? And if that is the case, would it not be possible for us to move it, to shape it and to surpass it? I can certainly see why we scoff at psychics and paranormal enthusiasts, but so too did we scoff at almost every game-changing breakthrough of our race.

Is it possible that we have already, or are currently doing, or are going to do, everything that we have, are and will do? Is it possible that we are simply reliving moments, that we are jumping around in time in our own heads, that everything is a memory and a dream? Scoff all you like, but tell me: how do you know that is not the case? Perhaps we are living every moment at the same time. Perhaps I know already how this blog will end, or when I will die. And perhaps time itself is simply an illusion.

Our minds are extraordinary things. Our souls are far more extraordinary. Perchance one day you wake up, and then you wake up, and you witness your life and your place in the universe and you think to yourself: is it truly all that simple? Perhaps we do this every day. Perhaps, when we sleep or when we die, we have our chance to understand the nature of things.

We are a forward-thinking people – perhaps we are the closest anyone, anywhere among the stars, has ever or will ever come to understanding the nature of this great thing we call the universe. But through all our time on this planet, and on this very plane of existence, we have never once come to understand the nature of time. We still rely on clocks to tell us, but ask yourself this: would you trust a clock with anything else?

I’ve stumbled upon a theory.

This theory is dependent on whether you like, or appreciate, Star Trek (in any of its forms – see ‘The Theory’). This theory (hence known as ‘The Theory’) may or may not sway your opinion on the matter, but I feel it is worth at least a random, inconsequential blog post to parley (another awesome ‘cinematographique’ to put into question) .

Star Trek is an enlightening, intelligent, satirical and inspiring visual stimulus – IF you digest it as it is meant, and as it is delivered by the people involved. Now I am fully aware of the many other blogs, forum posts, magazine articles, full magazines, documentaries, newspaper clippings, and PHD papers that make basically the same point. What I am about to reveal is the way that YOU  can come to appreciate Star Trek.

You = “anyone who is not at the moment, enriched from the Star Trek experience, but who is willing to become interested”;

The theory is very simple, and best enforced through example. Note that this theory has different weighting based upon the Star Trek series in question, in order as follows:

Original Series

The Next Generation

Voyager

Deep Space Nine

My theory is thus: The importance of Star Trek, and its influence upon our culture can be socially, scientifically, spiritually and critically evaluated based upon the actions of key actors outside the realms of the show. If this were a PHD thesis, I would spell it out for you, but as it’s a random blog post you have stumbled across while Google searching ‘the true meaning of star trek’ (don’t actually Google search that, I was lying) I’m simply going to give examples of what I mean (in order of the ‘In order as follows’ bit):

Gene Roddenberry: Star Craft (thanks attributed) – He is one of the only people on the planet, to be directly attributed to influencing the creation of a national sport, bar anecdotes. His work in bringing the world of science fiction into science fact cannot be overstated either.

William Shatner: Spoken Word Poetry – come on, he’s good at it, and he brought it into the public eye; Boston Legal; being a general mockery of himslf also shows people that you can have a laugh in life – even at your own expense.

DeForest Kelly: Come back to this blog when you’ve converted. Truly R.I.P. a great man. A great man who was nothing more than a man struggling with greatness.

Leonard Nimoy: (Narrator) Civilization IV, the latest in a video game series that has spanned the years since the popular inception of personal computer gaming – in 20 years time, even those who don’t know what I’m talking about WILL know what I’m talking about.

George Takei: ‘Heroes’ – in no small part developed the popular  opinion of superheroes (regardless of your opinion of the show in question).

Patrick Stewart: Brilliant stage actor; In the workings to be the replacement for David Attenborough… I think that is enough, but I’ll add ‘The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion’ (Narrator, ‘Emperor’) and ‘American Dad’ (popular adult comedy). Also; he is Patrick Stewart.

Ethan Philips & Armin Shimmerman: They’re in a LOT of movies and television shows. These two actors become recognisable fan favourites once you have digested ‘The Theory’.

Well, there are obviously more. The ultimate point is that each and every person involved in the television phenomena/fight for ultimate liberalism should be considered a Knight of the Order of the Human Race. Each of these people have strived (in the form of a far-out, cheesy soapish television series) to make our world better for each and every person, through the power of Modern Culture. It may seem a little silly, but it’s pretty much guaranteed that one of these people has affected your outlook in some way or another.

I’m not going to hold your hand, but if you are dedicated enough you will see how Star Trek, of all the pointless, base, overlooked, cultish and cheesy entertainment, has and will shape our world in the future. From the fiction of the show spurring scientists to make it so (couldn’t help myself) through to the work of former cheesy television actors influencing indie, and then popular culture, Star Trek has shaped our lives in more ways than any of us could possibly know – whether you like the show or not.

I only hope that the majority of humanity holds half the hopes and dreams portrayed in that most basic of television science fiction.

The more inane (and probably more astute) result of this theory is that the quantity of the recognisable cultural figures derived from a series of Star Trek is proportional to the significance and general awesomeness of the series in question… Actually, you could probably just ignore the bulk of this post and focus on that.

An article was brought to my attention recently that piqued the argumentative centre of my brain. It spoke of the printing of a new claim by Jeffrey Schwartz and John Rehan in a scientific journal (Journal of Biogeography, DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02141.x if you care) that the current means in which we determine the relationship between us and our nearest relatives in the animal kingdom are wrong, and that taxonomic methods prove that orang-utans, not chimpanzees, are our nearest relatives.

Stay with me here. I’m sure that most people would respond with a resounding “who cares”, and so do I really. What got my attention wasn’t the subject of the article, but the response from the scientific community. Schwartz, Rehan and Robert Whittaker (editor of Journal of Biogeography) have all come under some pretty serious fire from the rest of the scientific community, because the claim declares that DNA sequencing is flawed. Many people are shocked that the journal published it at all. And I am shocked that scientists, of all people, would be so narrow-minded.

It makes me ask the question: whose opinion matters? And it’s not an easy question to answer.

Throughout history, general knowledge (that is, what we commonly take to be fact) has always been under attack by people with wild claims and differing opinions. Galileo was imprisoned for claiming many things that were thought to be wrong, that we now believe to be true. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace made some pretty tremendous claims about how we came to be here, and scientifically at least we now believe them to be true. Just because someone’s idea doesn’t swim with the proverbial school, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

So whose opinion matters more? If we were shown two leading theories of gravity for instance, are you more likely to listen to the professor who aced every test, or the man who failed maths in school? We still use general relativity today. Should someone’s notion be discounted because of who they are?

Does my opinion actually matter? I’m writing this article expressing it. If you’re reading it, surely I have some effect on you. Does your opinion matter? If a qualified journalist were to tell you that I am wrong, and they were right, who would you listen to?

Like I said, it’s a tricky question. We should at least respect the right of everyone to have their proposal properly interrogated. It may be a stupid idea, but there might be a small gem of genius embedded within. Schwartz and Rehan were brave enough to publish their theory, and the scientific community should have the respect to debate the point. Who knows, maybe something as simple as arguing about which is the more human monkey will shine light on the flaws of genome science and taxonomy, and force us to re-evaluate what we think to be true.

Or maybe I’m reading way too much into it, and this journal is full of shit. Time will tell.