posted
The answer was partly explained in the movie itself. Picard said that she was on the cube in TBoBW and when it exploded she should have died. Any yet she was still alive in FC. So for the same reasons explained in the movie, she can still be alive at the time of Voyager after being killed in FC.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Yah...I've said this before...but since I'm really sure I'm right...I'm going to spout off again
I've always thought of the Queen as a consciousness within the Collective...she's not so much an individual entity as she is the manifestation of the Collective Consciouness itself.
Her nature seems to be at all points and times within the Collective's existance. As far as her physical body...I agree with Harry...they likly have spares...
Imagine this: The future Borg have discovered reliable time-travel. Since they do not have anything like a Temporal Prime Directive, the Borg can exist in all times. Time does no longer exist for them. A ship can travel in four dimensions (x,y,z and t). (actually, this is an idea for some other sci-fi fantasy of mine...)
What if the queen somehow has this ability to be anywhere and anytime she wants?
posted
The problem with that is that she could just go back in time and let the Borg of that time know how they are going to be defeated...they'd be unstoppable...
posted
the queen has been represensted so poorly onscreen its impossible to tell whats her possible role in the collective.
Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
quote:"... think so 3-dimensional..." What does that mean in this context? Throw-away line technobabble - or a possible clue?
"You imply disparity where none exists...I am the Collective..." etc.
I think that understanding the relationship between the Queen and the Collective is simply beyond our comprehension as individualistic creatures - similar to the way that a human, a four dimensional creature, simply cannot visualize the fifth dimension (if it does exist).
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
posted
I am not Stingray, nor a stingray, nor any sort of aquatic creature (barring any possible "aquatic ape" theories of human evolution), but I will give it a go. A couple goes, even.
Take a line. Make it infinitely narrow. That's the first dimension. Square the line and you get a square, infinitely thin. Square the square and you get a cube. Square the cube and you get a five dimensional hypercube. It looks like...well, your mind can't concieve of it. Neither can mine.
As an alternative, have you ever seen one of those patterns where you can take a flat piece of paper and fold it up into a cube? You know how it looks? Well, you could unfold a hypercube in the same way. Only rather than several squares that fold into a cube you'd have several cubes that fold into a hypercube.
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
I'm not Sol System, nor a solar system nor any form of celestial object (baring those theories where we're the products of supernovae)
Take it like this:
Imagine you're a two dimensional person. Your universe is a square that you live on, and as far as you know, the entire universe consists soley of two dimensional objects. If all you know is two dimensions, then you cannot possibly concieve of a third dimension or any three dimensional object. If some radical revolutionary were to try and describe, say a sphere to you, you simply would not be able to imagine anything but circles.
That is not to say that I believe that the Borg extend into the 5th dimension (or subspace or whatever). That's not the point. The point is, as individualistic humans, we simply cannot adequately visualize the organizational relationship.
We can however, take indivualistic slices. You can't describe a sphere to a two dimensional person. But you can somewhat explain it to them by describing it as a collection of circles. If a sphere were to pass through the square top to bottom (that a 2D person lived on), that person would see a small circle appear out of nowhere, get larger and then smaller before finally dissapearing again. He can't picture the sphere in its entirety, but he can see the 2D slices of it.
So to carry the analogy, we can picture the individualistic slices (a drone, the Queen) b/c we are individualistic creatures. But we are simply incapable of picturing the collective whole.
Yikes.
[ June 06, 2001: Message edited by: Stingray ]
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
I like Douglas Adams' theory: "Well, if you'd like to know, I can tell you that in your universe you move freely in three dimensions that you call space. You move in a straight line in a fourth, which you call time, and stay rooted to one place in a fifth, which is the first fundamental of probability. After that it gets a bit complicated, and there's all sorts of stuff going on in dimensions thirteen to twenty-two that you really wouldn't want to know about."
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
If we're incapable of understanding the fifth dimension, where has the idea come from? Or did it just come about when someone said there are three dimensions, there are four dimenions, so there is a fifth?
I do remember reading a novel in sixth grade called "A Wrinkle in Time." It has been a long time, so my memory of it is shady, however I remember a though where we are on a side of a string and our destination is the other side. Instead of travelling across the string to reach the side, we just "bend" the string and bring the two ends together. This makes the distance far shorter. I thought that this "string theory" is the fifth dimension? Am I wrong?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
