Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    Re-Check/Weird Scenes    The Late Philip J. Fry Goof (SPOILERS, big 'uns) « previous next »
Author Topic: The Late Philip J. Fry Goof (SPOILERS, big 'uns)  (Read 13716 times)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Print
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #160 on: 08-15-2010 22:40 »

As I've said, it doesn't cause any flaws with canon because for all we know the different forms of time-travel behave differently

The mechanics of travelling in time may behave differently, but there's got to be a consistent model for causality, for the way that things behave in the physical universe, and for the flow of time itself. These things shouldn't behave differently from one episode to the next. It makes no logical sense.
you know as well as I do that there's plenty of evidence in favour of a multiple universe theory. I'd say there's more evidence for it from the episode as a stand-alone, it's only when you start comparing it up against past episodes and scientific titbits that I doubt the writers took into account that cyclical time begins to hold water.

There's plenty of evidence against it, and no evidence against a CT model.
In many ways this is like the whole evolution debate. They want to listen to God's word, or in my case, the writers of the show because they are essentially the show's God. The difference is that we know that the writers of the show exist, so I'd say my viewpoint is the intelligent one whereas ignoring the world of God is stupid in this particular case.

I think you mean the word of God. And until we get W-O-G telling us that they're stupid and they fucked up (ie: intended to show a CU model), I'll continue to insist that whatever they intended, what has been portrayed is the CT model. If they meant to show a CU model, then they've massively goofed.

Since CT model is the one portrayed, I don't think that "subscribing to the CU model" is the "intelligent" choice at all. It's a cop-out. It's igoring the evidence in favour of your personal preferences. When I first saw the CU theory proposed, I weighed it up, and found things wrong with it. I came up with the CT model in an attempt to a) describe what was shown within the context of the show's canon and b) produce a consistent and logically sound model for time travel, the nature of time, and what was presented in the episode. CT fulfils these two conditions, whereas CU has problems. CU doesn't work within the context of the show. It could work under different conditions, but even with "different forms" of time travel behaving differently, spacetime must have a uniform and predictable response, therefore the crux of your argument is based on flawed reasoning.

As I see it, whether or not CU was what the writers had in mind at the time, CT is what appears on screen, therefore CT is definitively correct. Arguing otherwise is like saying that somebody who intended to fire a blank round at his neighbour to scare him, and selected a live cartrige by mistake should not be charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence, because he didn't mean to do it. It's ludicrous.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #161 on: 08-15-2010 23:09 »

As I've said, it doesn't cause any flaws with canon because for all we know the different forms of time-travel behave differently

The mechanics of travelling in time may behave differently, but there's got to be a consistent model for causality, for the way that things behave in the physical universe, and for the flow of time itself. These things shouldn't behave differently from one episode to the next. It makes no logical sense.

I completely get what you're saying, but like I've said, is it not possible that some of the methods of time-travel (such as the time code) use science we haven't even begun to have have thought about to get their results? We don't know how the time-travel works, therefore we can't say that there are inconsistencies with any certainty.
I always took the paradox correcting element of the time-code in Bender's Big Score and the doom-field to be aspects sort of 'tacked on' to the usual time-travel by that code in order to stop time-travel from creating any major problems.

Quote
you know as well as I do that there's plenty of evidence in favour of a multiple universe theory. I'd say there's more evidence for it from the episode as a stand-alone, it's only when you start comparing it up against past episodes and scientific titbits that I doubt the writers took into account that cyclical time begins to hold water.

There's plenty of evidence against it, and no evidence against a CT model.
There's plenty of evidence against a cyclical time model, it just comes from a writing point of view rather than a science one.

Quote
In many ways this is like the whole evolution debate. They want to listen to God's word, or in my case, the writers of the show because they are essentially the show's God. The difference is that we know that the writers of the show exist, so I'd say my viewpoint is the intelligent one whereas ignoring the world of God is stupid in this particular case.

I think you mean the word of God. And until we get W-O-G telling us that they're stupid and they fucked up (ie: intended to show a CU model), I'll continue to insist that whatever they intended, what has been portrayed is the CT model. If they meant to show a CU model, then they've massively goofed.
What they've portrayed is fairly ambiguous. You seem to be the only person having these problems with it being a cyclical universe theory (I'm not saying you're the only person to think it's cylical time). They've done nothing that can't be explained with a throw-away line similar to them increasing the speed of light.

Quote
Since CT model is the one portrayed, I don't think that "subscribing to the CU model" is the "intelligent" choice at all. It's a cop-out. It's igoring the evidence in favour of your personal preferences.
I feel that cyclical universes are being portrayed because I look at the show from a writing point of view rather than a purely science one. Otherwise it would annoy me how the crew constantly survive their ship crashing and so forth. If the writers say they survived, it's fine. I'm not going to go behind their backs and get all "well regardless of what they're saying, they portrayed a deadly crash".

Quote
When I first saw the CU theory proposed, I weighed it up, and found things wrong with it. I came up with the CT model in an attempt to a) describe what was shown within the context of the show's canon and b) produce a consistent and logically sound model for time travel, the nature of time, and what was presented in the episode. CT fulfils these two conditions, whereas CU has problems. CU doesn't work within the context of the show. It could work under different conditions, but even with "different forms" of time travel behaving differently, spacetime must have a uniform and predictable response, therefore the crux of your argument is based on flawed reasoning.
Not if the different forms of time travel have different affects upon space and time. For all we know, space and time can behave in different ways in the futurama universe.
And ultimately, whilst Futurama may use good science as a jumping off point, it's full of scientific flaws. Take the most recent episode as an example. Robotic evolution from nanobots is scientifically possible and a great concept, but they way they portray it isn't scientifically sound at all. We never see the more complex robots self-replicate. Why do they not appear to evolve at all during the day but then evolve incredibly quickly during the night? It doesn't add up.
I take The Late Philip J. Fry the same way. Cyclic universes is a good scientic jumping off point. There may be problems with it when you really analyse the science under a microscope but they're forgivable in the same way that all of the episodes have scientific flaws.

Quote
As I see it, whether or not CU was what the writers had in mind at the time, CT is what appears on screen, therefore CT is definitively correct. Arguing otherwise is like saying that somebody who intended to fire a blank round at his neighbour to scare him, and selected a live cartrige by mistake should not be charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence, because he didn't mean to do it. It's ludicrous.
No. By your logic, you're saying that man should have been charged with murder whereas I'm saying he should have been charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #162 on: 08-15-2010 23:37 »
« Last Edit on: 08-15-2010 23:40 by totalnerduk »

No. By your logic, you're saying that man should have been charged with murder whereas I'm saying he should have been charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence.

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm sating charge him with the results of his actions, not the intent (ie: manslaughter rather than nothing). Your "logic" leads to the assumption that since he intended to scare the guy and not to kill him, he should be let off.

Since you seem determined to contradict everything I say using such ridiculous arguments as "space and time can behave in different ways", I think I'm about done with this thread.

Time for one final round of "no".

Firstly, "What they've portrayed is fairly ambiguous. " - not in the context of established canon. It points firmly to CT.

Secondly, "There's plenty of evidence against a cyclical time model" - no, there isn't any evidence against it.

Thirdly, "from a writing point of view" - unless you wrote the episode, STFRU. Now. The writing of the episode correlates pretty strongly with what ends up on screen once the actors and animators are done with their portions.  Unless you're privy to some great secret that the rest of us are not, you're pulling things not just from your ass, but from the ass of your invisible friend.

I'm not going to call you crazy, but... okay. I'm going to call you crazy. You're crazy. Show's over, I'm tired. If I come back later, expect me to devolve back to "you're wrong, end of post" rather than actually bothering to explain things. This is getting frustrating. No matter how many logical, rational arguments I put forth, people hang onto ridiculous assertions such as "time behaves differently depending on how you travel through it" and "the universe was ten feet lower due to the inertial reaction from the Professor's ray gun!"

Honestly, this isn't a forum, it's a madhouse! A madhouse!
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #163 on: 08-16-2010 00:24 »

Quote
Since you seem determined to contradict everything I say using such ridiculous arguments as "space and time can behave in different ways", I think I'm about done with this thread.
There's no reason why they couldn't within the Futurama universe for all that we know. It wouldn't be hard for them to write a line of dialogue explaining it.
And that was one possible suggestion I made along with others such as some of time-travel methods possibly using ways of travelling through time that we haven't even conisdered yet with science as we know it.

Quote
Firstly, "What they've portrayed is fairly ambiguous. " - not in the context of established canon. It points firmly to CT.
Not really. Everything in the episode points towards cyclic universes up until the Professor's line about paradoxes which could either be a poor use of the word chalked up to the writers trying to convey 'confusion caused by there being two of us' easily and quickly or it could be something to do with cylical time although it CREATES more of a paradox than it fixes one. Yes, with Bender's Big Score's version of time travel, this isn't a problem, but why would the writers choose to do this when they could have just had them arrive a few seconds later and miss out on their past selves altogether? Why create confusion for the sake of it?

Quote
Secondly, "There's plenty of evidence against a cyclical time model" - no, there isn't any evidence against it.
There is. There's plenty of evidence for a cyclical universe model and every bit of evidence for cyclical universes is a piece of evidence against cylical time.

Quote
I'm not going to call you crazy, but... okay. I'm going to call you crazy. You're crazy. Show's over, I'm tired. If I come back later, expect me to devolve back to "you're wrong, end of post" rather than actually bothering to explain things. This is getting frustrating. No matter how many logical, rational arguments I put forth, people hang onto ridiculous assertions such as "time behaves differently depending on how you travel through it"
You're basically describing yourself. I'm offering potential explanations for things and you're just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "no!". I still fail to see why cyclical universes can't work with the pre-established time-travel of the show anyway.
Time Keeps on Slippin': Time skips cause time to lurch forwards. This doesn't contradict cyclic universes. If the skips kept on going, we'd just presumably lurch into the next universe.
Roswell that Ends Well: The crew travel backwards within' their universe. They muck about and return home. You can read the episode either as things being destined and they just fulfilled how things went down (Enus wasn't really Fry's grandfather, his grandma just lied) or you can read it as a paradox that the timeline just sort of accepts.
The Why of Fry: Fry goes back within his universe and then creates a paradox which DOES affect the future. This already contradicts Roswell that Ends Well.
Bender's Big Score: Bender goes back in time again and again and again with a parafox-correcting time-code designed to mean that any time-travel that takes place doesn't affect the characters' present. It also comes with a doom field. This contradicts The Why of Fry unless you take the time-code to be a special type of time travel that comes with extra rules as it were.

So, does cyclical unvierse theory work with Time Keeps on Slippin'? Absolutely.
Does it work with Roswell that Ends Well? Again yes. If they go into a new universe rather than back in time, then it's irrelivant how backwards time travel happened in this episode.
Does it work with The Why of Fry? As above.
Does it work with Bender's Big Score? As above.

Now, if it's cyclical time, it works with Time Keeps on Slippin' and very well with Bender's Big Score. It sort of works with Roswell that Ends well.
But it doesn't work with The Why of Fry at all. Fry created a paradox and it didn't correct itself in that episode.

Therefore, the show's established time-travel canon already lacks continuity and so 'different types of time travel' is the only real explanation I can see that makes sense other than 'the writers messed up'.
Either way, cyclical universes are more compatible with the time-travel episodes we already have as it doesn't pick sides so to speak.

Quote
and "the universe was ten feet lower due to the inertial reaction from the Professor's ray gun!"
I haven't seen anyone make that argument. I certainly didn't make it.

I took that line to be a reference to how even with the same start and ingredients, sub-atomic anomolies will stop two universes from being absolutely, 100% identical.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #164 on: 08-16-2010 00:37 »

Just about everything you just posted was wrong. No, I will not explain. I've been over it enough already. Wrong, wrong, wrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.

Nureek. Squelookle. Wrong show. Oops. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Just wrong.
Nutmeg1729

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #165 on: 08-16-2010 00:40 »

No, you've broken sequence! Nureek, Rotoot, Hernunger!



couldn't resist...
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #166 on: 08-16-2010 00:56 »

Just about everything you just posted was wrong. No, I will not explain. I've been over it enough already. Wrong, wrong, wrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.

Nureek. Squelookle. Wrong show. Oops. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Just wrong.

You can't explain why it's wrong, that means I win the debate big grin

(Even though you're probably aware that this is a psychological tactic designed to get you to explain why, I think you'll still bite).
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #167 on: 08-16-2010 01:11 »
« Last Edit on: 08-16-2010 01:14 by totalnerduk »

No, I can explain. I choose not to.

It's all there in black and white, clear as crystal.

You bumped into the ceiling, which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing.

You win nothing. You lose. Good day, sir.

Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #168 on: 08-16-2010 01:22 »

And that is how Nixon won the 1960 election.

Hold on, wait a minute...
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #169 on: 08-16-2010 01:29 »

I win.

I guess that means that the official consensus is now cyclical universes.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #170 on: 08-16-2010 01:36 »

No no, just because totalnerduk failed to argue the point, doesn't make it less sound.  That's like someone failing to argue gravity and then you conclude that gravity does not exist.

It only says something about the person arguing, not what they are arguing.  Though it might some times.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #171 on: 08-16-2010 01:44 »
« Last Edit on: 08-16-2010 02:09 by totalnerduk »

No, you do not. There is as yet no official consensus, since the majority of people seem to be undecided (or are staying out of the argument for their own reasons). Even were CU to be the official consensus, it would still be wrong, due to the CU model not having been portrayed in the show, in addition to it having been wrong from the outset.

Start a poll, if you like. CT vs. CU - whatever the consensus is, CT is right, CU is wrong. That's just the way things are. It's like having a poll on whether the sky is orange or blue. The poll's outcome does not change the fact that the sky is blue. Orange could win by 100% landslide, and it still would not change the colour of the sky.

Just because something is agreed upon by a majority (which CU is not) does not make it right, it simply makes the majority stupid. Tony Blair won election after election because the majority voted for him. Did that make Tony Blair the right choice for running the country?

No. It did not. As for having "won", please consider yourself to be the victor, if that was your goal. I don't know exactly what you've won, but I hope it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling. Whatever you've won though, you're still wrong.

Here's an idea of how wrong you are. Next to your wrongness, this does not even begin to compare, and I think that we can all agree it's so very wrong.
No no, just because totalnerduk failed to argue the point, doesn't make it less sound.  That's like someone failing to argue gravity and then you conclude that gravity does not exist.

It only says something about the person arguing, not what they are arguing.  Though it might some times.

I contend that rather than failing to argue, I chose to abstain from further explanation, and instead concentrate on telling people that they're wrong, since I have done enough explaining already.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #172 on: 08-16-2010 01:51 »

Guys, I was joking.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #173 on: 08-16-2010 02:08 »
« Last Edit on: 08-16-2010 02:10 by totalnerduk »

I decided to respond to your last few points individually anyways. Sadly, the layers of text got smooshed together on this helpful diagram (I forgot that MSPaint can't render things in four dimensions), and even though they're colour coded, it's illegible now. So I included a helpful summary in white at the bottom.



Thus endeth... well, the thread, in an ideal universe.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #174 on: 08-16-2010 02:41 »

No, you're wrong.

Annoying, isn't it?
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #175 on: 08-16-2010 02:53 »

Guys, I was joking.
No, you're wrong.

Make up your mind. Either you're joking, or you're misguided enough to think that I'm wrong. Which is it?
Tedward

Professor
*
« Reply #176 on: 08-16-2010 02:55 »

"When discussing time travel it's more important to be aware of the fact that the universe has a specific end point than anything so trivial as the paradox which would result from killing one's own grandfather. The chances of causing problems with localised time travel are next to nothing thanks to the nature of spacetime and the curve that matter inhabits upon the face of it. certain things show spacetime to be clearly curved. Gravity wells, for example. Spacetime is not curved around these, these merely highlight the fact that it is curved overall in a gigantic loop, picking up at the beginning, following the end. So don't despair, your petty life is nothing in the grand scheme of things."

[eyes]Ouch![/eyes]...tnuk, how'd I do?
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #177 on: 08-16-2010 03:10 »

Guys, I was joking.
No, you're wrong.

Make up your mind. Either you're joking, or you're misguided enough to think that I'm wrong. Which is it?

I said I was joking when I said I won the debate and that there was an official consensus. I didn't say anything about you being wrong being a joke.

But I phrased it in a tongue-in-cheek manor, parodying you. What I'd normally write is something akin to "I don't agree with your interpretation".
Taco Wiz

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #178 on: 08-16-2010 03:17 »

Why don't we have arguments like this over That's So Raven?
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #179 on: 08-16-2010 03:47 »

"When discussing time travel it's more important to be aware of the fact that the universe has a specific end point than anything so trivial as the paradox which would result from killing one's own grandfather. The chances of causing problems with localised time travel are next to nothing thanks to the nature of spacetime and the curve that matter inhabits upon the face of it. certain things show spacetime to be clearly curved. Gravity wells, for example. Spacetime is not curved around these, these merely highlight the fact that it is curved overall in a gigantic loop, picking up at the beginning, following the end. So don't despair, your petty life is nothing in the grand scheme of things."

[eyes]Ouch![/eyes]...tnuk, how'd I do?

Heh. You pulled the final layer of text... but there are four layers, and each says something different. Go ahead. Try to decipher them all.
Tedward

Professor
*
« Reply #180 on: 08-16-2010 04:06 »

* Tedward squints, sees deeper into the text, and cries.

I'll pass.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #181 on: 08-16-2010 05:23 »
« Last Edit on: 08-16-2010 05:29 »

I'm interested in what it says... but i can't read it... if you could send me the individual layers by e-mail, tnuk, that would be great... my e-mail's on my profile! please no spam or anyone ranting about CU... Cuz it's wrong!

EDIT: spelling error and wanted to add last statement for the hell of it! ^.^
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #182 on: 08-16-2010 05:41 »

To quote a personal hero of mine "I am not your slave."

If you want to read the layers, you'll have to figure out a way to decipher them. I didn't save them.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #183 on: 08-16-2010 06:14 »
« Last Edit on: 08-16-2010 18:24 »

oh...  frown okay, sorry i was just wondering... i didn't mean to offend you at all.   i was just curious... i'll try to look through the layers... thank you anyway...   frown sorry...


I've worked out most of the next part... but i can't make out the rest... it's beyond my grasp...  frown

"the thing about time travel is that most people are really confused by the really simple things. they get hung up on details.  but it doesn't matter in the long run.  none of it matters, especially not the little details that you're freaking out over. because eventually the universe will end, and another life will end, but that's not something that should bother you. Or even depress you.  it will start all over again, because time is actually a circle. a gigantic circle that will keep on turning.  the wheel of time does in fact keep going on and on.  and your ttons? as a mere participant in the most minor of dots? mean little over the long term.  of more centem? should be doughnuts.  oh my, yes."

that's most of it the words with a question mark are the bits i can't make out... frown   this whole thing is really depressing...

 :(sorry for trying to take the lazy way out...  i'll try to make out the rest...  confused

EDIT: sorry for the double post... i didn't even realize i did it... Thanx for fixing it Gopher...
Fnord
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #184 on: 08-16-2010 09:35 »

Time may not be cyclic, but the arguments in this thread seem to be ...
Tedward

Professor
*
« Reply #185 on: 08-16-2010 18:17 »

the words with a question mark are the bits i can't make out...

The second one is "the most minor acts" and the third one is "of more concern," but I can't tell what the first one is.

As for the first and second layers of text (assuming the blue was the third), though, I wouldn't bother any further with it unless you can manipulate the image enough to make it more legible (I later tried fiddling with the saturation and contrast and such to little avail). Don't blame yourself; it isn't your fault that the diagram's creator has presented it to us in its current form. I am curious about its full message as well, but it does appear to be intended more as an amusing but questionably effective argument tool against opponents of a certain theory than a further comfort for those who already are supporters.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #186 on: 08-16-2010 18:22 »

Time may not be cyclic, but the arguments in this thread seem to be ...
that's because the CU theorists keep asking questions that the CT theorists have already answered.  Then the CT theorists have to say the same thing all over again...

the words with a question mark are the bits i can't make out...

The second one is "the most minor acts" and the third one is "of more concern," but I can't tell what the first one is.

As for the first and second layers of text (assuming the blue was the third), though, I wouldn't bother any further with it unless you can manipulate the image enough to make it more legible (I later tried fiddling with the saturation and contrast and such to little avail). Don't blame yourself; it isn't your fault that the diagram's creator has presented it to us in its current form. I am curious about its full message as well, but it does appear to be intended more as an amusing but questionably effective argument tool against opponents of a certain theory than a further comfort for those who already are supporters.
I guess you're right... i just really wanted to know what it said... also ts image, while originally having many layers, has been presented as a .jpg file.  This means that we can't manipulate any moire that just running it through filters, which i did for an hour yesterday to no avail...
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #187 on: 08-17-2010 01:24 »

Time may not be cyclic, but the arguments in this thread seem to be ...
that's because the CU theorists keep asking questions that the CT theorists have already answered.  Then the CT theorists have to say the same thing all over again...
That absolutely goes both ways. I've asked some things several times because I haven't gotten answers yet.
I've repeated my arguments several times because the arguments they were responding to have come back again and again.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #188 on: 08-17-2010 01:37 »

i think i'm done here, too... this is getting tedious... sleep
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #189 on: 08-17-2010 03:26 »

See you when the DVD comes out.
Erdrik

Professor
*
« Reply #190 on: 08-17-2010 04:17 »

Ha ha ha... laff

Im so glad Ive been away from the net for all that.
I don't really agree with some of what cyber_turnip was sayin'.
Mostly in a "yer debating/arguing wrong!!" kinda way.. tongue
(No offence cyber_turnip, just sayin'...)

Quote from: totalnerduk
I'm saying there's no predetermined curve that events want to cling to in CU, therefore the problems may be smoothed over by events taking a different course, since there is no "inertia" type effect to pull things back in the right direction.
You have not presented any evidence or reasonable reasons why(or any reason why IIRC).
Why (Yay I can bold too!!) is CU mysteriously lacking an inertia type effect?
In CT time flows forward in a curve, and in CU time flows forward in a straight line.
Presumably if there is still flow, there is still enertia.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, not trying to pull you back into the debate if you don't want to.
Just felt I should respond to your previous post.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #191 on: 08-17-2010 06:00 »
« Last Edit on: 08-17-2010 06:01 by totalnerduk »

No. There's no flow in CU. Just movement. Time can't be accurately visualised using two dimensional metaphors. Without a curvature to follow, the "line" can go in any direction it damn well pleases. There's nothing to iron out the effects of interference. Please see this diagram, constructed in two parts, in an attempt to explain what I apologise for seeing as totally self-evident. I just forget that not everybody thinks like I do (oddly, in other words).





As for repeating arguments, I'm trying to explain things as best I can. I'm not terribly good at this, 'cause I forget to do things like explain the terms I'm using, not realising that not everybody makes the same connections I do. Honestly, I'm attempting to answer every question (even the stupid ones) at least once. I might go back to just telling people I'm right and they're wrong occasionally, but that's mainly due to frustration on my part.

It's amusing to think that the gobbledygook I spent five minutes layering into a .jpg took people an hour or more to get bored of trying to decipher. laff

I'll have to do things like that more often.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #192 on: 08-17-2010 06:24 »
« Last Edit on: 08-17-2010 06:26 »


It's amusing to think that the gobbledygook I spent five minutes layering into a .jpg took people an hour or more to get bored of trying to decipher. laff

I'll have to do things like that more often.
i didn't get bored  frown i really couldn't make it out!  

anyway...

your saying that the flow of time acts like gravity?  and that a series of events that doesn't have this gravity means that something can change?...

Quote
in example:
 in a cyclic time model, i go back in time and stop myself from buying a full Futurama season 6 set on dvd... my past self instead gets it for a birthday present, because time needed to have continuity in orde to be able to go on properly... the me that was in the past is now the present me...who goes back to tell himself to not buy it... then that past self gets it as a b-day present, and it cycles through again... thus we have a stable loop!   big grin

in a cyclic universe model i go back in time and stop myself from getting futurama season 6 on dvd... this time i don't get it for my birthday... back in the future i may or may not have it... i most likely don't but i still have memories of having them from going back... or maybe i don't... i also have no reason to go back and stop myself from getting them...  so i don't, but then i do get them in the past and the  cycle continues...  time doesn't need the continuity in order to continue... thus we have an unstable loop...   eek

Did i explain it right, totalnerduk?  confused
 a quote from myself from earlier in the thread... cuz it's the best thing i've got right now...

(i just wanted to post something semi-useful...)

EDIT: instead of the reason being because it needs continuity it's because of this gravity-like effect!  If i am wrong, tnuk, please let me know!
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #193 on: 08-17-2010 06:38 »

It's wrong, but I really can't be arsed anymore. Wait until I feel energetic again, perhaps I'll make more diagrams, or another long post.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #194 on: 08-17-2010 06:46 »

*   puts head down and swallows some aspirin

okay, i'm ready for your next post... maybe...
Ghost and Horse

Crustacean
*
« Reply #195 on: 08-17-2010 06:57 »

Why can't the CU people have a really obnoxious person on their side too?

That way someone could be both annoying, rude and correct, instead of just annoying and Rude?
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #196 on: 08-17-2010 07:07 »
« Last Edit on: 08-17-2010 07:21 »

Guh! tell me about it!  except tnuk isn't annoying...

EDIT: i subsrcibe to the CT theory, i just want to hear some good arguments from the other side...


EDIT: also... tnuk is correct...i just reread your post Ghost and Horse and i realized you were saying that tnuk isn't correct.  (woopsie doopsi poopsie)   but ya... tnuk is right, or at least has convinced me, because he has had the arguments that make the most sense.  and not just a "i think the writers intended it this way" line...
Ghost and Horse

Crustacean
*
« Reply #197 on: 08-17-2010 07:26 »

ALright. Probably not. Gut reaction from only hearing him insult people in the Late Philip J Fry related threads. Retracted.

But in no way do I feel he is right. CU all the way.

Course I also have nothing new to add... except I can't wait for those commentaries.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #198 on: 08-17-2010 07:32 »

I *am* annoying, rude, and correct.

The "correct" part tends to be what irritates people the most, I find. If I was some kind of simpleton, they might take pity on me. But because I'm right, and rude about it, it does tend to alienate people.

CT works within the context of the Futuramaverse. CU does not. That's what it boils down to at the core of it. You've chosen a flawed theory to support... which I tend to take as a license to be as annoying as I want. Because I'm right.

* totalnerduk  does the "I'm right, you're wrong" dance.
Ghost and Horse

Crustacean
*
« Reply #199 on: 08-17-2010 07:41 »

I stand by my disagreement, you can throw all the graphs up there you want, but everything about that episode implied CU.

With that said, there is no need to go into a repeat of things previously stated. I just had to partake in the magic of this wacky debate. My two cents matter damn it!

I can settle with us both doing our respective "I think I am righter than you are" dances and call it a night.


But for the record, it is CU!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.33 seconds with 17 queries.