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 13496 times)
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 Print
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #200 on: 08-17-2010 07:52 »

The episode could be interpreted either way, save for three points. Firstly, conservation of mass. The universe was missing the mass of the timeship when time joined back up the first time we saw it. That points to inconsistencies occuring because the conditions are no longer exactly the same, butterfly effect, etc, etc.

Secondly, the Professor's "paradox" line. It wouldn't be a paradox if they were actually within a CU model. The Professor is too smart (should be, anyways) to throw the term around where it would be implemeted incorrectly. Unlike certain forum members here.

Thirdly, the whole "ten feet lower" bit. I know, I know, people seem to think it implies CU, but bear with me here. Since the timeship could not occupy the same position within space and time as the time-duplicate version of itself, it re-entered the time stream ten feet higher up, and slightly to the right. Had this been a CU continuum, the timeship would have displaced the cyclic duplicate of itself, or caused some sort of explosion, as two sets of identical subatomic particles tried to occupy the same space at the same time.

Since within the context of the show as a whole, CU doesn't work, CT is correct and CU is wrong.

Also, stop calling my diagrams "graphs". no no Improper implementation of terms aside, it makes them sound like there's some kind of mathematical component to them. Which is irritating.
Ghost and Horse

Crustacean
*
« Reply #201 on: 08-17-2010 07:54 »

What happened to the not repeating information in favor of dance idea? I liked that one.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #202 on: 08-17-2010 08:31 »



I got tired of dancing. I'm going with the "try to explain things" idea for a little while.
Ghost and Horse

Crustacean
*
« Reply #203 on: 08-17-2010 08:32 »

Well, let me know when you start being right.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #204 on: 08-17-2010 08:33 »

Well, let me know when you start being right.

I'm right. You're wrong. I'd dance it for you, but I used up all my energy on the pretty picture.
Ghost and Horse

Crustacean
*
« Reply #205 on: 08-17-2010 08:39 »

You shall be cursed by your own Hubris.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #206 on: 08-17-2010 09:35 »

I'd refer to myself as arrogant rather than hubristic. You shall be cursed by your... um, tendancy to use the wrong word, I suppose. tongue

But seriously, I resent and refute your allegations of hubris due to the implied "fall" or humiliation that popularly follows.

You see, what you've failed to take into account is:

  • I'm right.
  • You're wrong.
  • I actually have a very good idea of what I'm talking about.
  • My pretty pictures are gradually becoming better, easier to read, and more elegant. Soon I will post one so elegant and simple that even you will understand the theory and ramifications of the CT model, how it applies to the Futuramaverse, and the implications of this should the writers have intended to portray the CU model.
  • I'm a bad motherfucker. I'm seventeen feet tall and have a hundred and fifty wives.

I really do need to get something to eat.
Ghost and Horse

Crustacean
*
« Reply #207 on: 08-17-2010 10:46 »

This back and forth is lasting longer than I expected. I kind of just thought I was going to insult you, get insulted back, and then... kinda.... fade away.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #208 on: 08-17-2010 10:50 »

You fail at trolling.
Ghost and Horse

Crustacean
*
« Reply #209 on: 08-17-2010 10:58 »

Indeed so.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #210 on: 08-17-2010 15:48 »

big grin i didn't even need aspirin for that one! i understood it quite clearly.  if they get better than this they will turn into 4-dimensional holograms, with plans to build a time machine to prove his point! big grin
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #211 on: 08-17-2010 18:16 »
« Last Edit on: 08-17-2010 19:36 »

The episode could be interpreted either way, save for three points. Firstly, conservation of mass. The universe was missing the mass of the timeship when time joined back up the first time we saw it. That points to inconsistencies occuring because the conditions are no longer exactly the same, butterfly effect, etc, etc.
Presumably this wasn't the first universe in which a time machine containing the crew had gone past the big bang. Presumably it happens at every end of the universe.
And the universe wasn't 100% identical anyway. It was 10 feet lower and that key was different. And that's just from what we saw in a few minutes of running time.
Edit: I've just realised it'd be every other universe. Thing is, we don't see that much of the second universe. For all we know, it IS drastically different.

Quote
Secondly, the Professor's "paradox" line. It wouldn't be a paradox if they were actually within a CU model. The Professor is too smart (should be, anyways) to throw the term around where it would be implemeted incorrectly. Unlike certain forum members here.
Them being there didn't solve a paradox if you believe it to be cyclical time, so much as it created one.
I think paradox was just clumsy writing meant to convey the problems that would arise from there being two of every one.

Quote
Thirdly, the whole "ten feet lower" bit. I know, I know, people seem to think it implies CU, but bear with me here. Since the timeship could not occupy the same position within space and time as the time-duplicate version of itself, it re-entered the time stream ten feet higher up, and slightly to the right. Had this been a CU continuum, the timeship would have displaced the cyclic duplicate of itself, or caused some sort of explosion, as two sets of identical subatomic particles tried to occupy the same space at the same time.
1. It does imply CU, you're just trying hard to make it fit a CT model.
2. Had this been CU, that would have happened, yes. Except that the universe was 10 feet lower, so that it didn't. Why do you think the universe was 10 feet lower? The answer is because the writers needed a way to get out of the time-machines 'crashing' with eachother and also needed a way to kill of the dopplegangers. 2 birds with 1 stone.

Quote
Since within the context of the show as a whole, CU doesn't work, CT is correct and CU is wrong.
You keep saying this and yet you refuse to explain how it contradicts the show's past.
And you have never answered my point that The Why of Fry already contradicts Roswell that Ends Well and Bender's Big Score.
The best I got was several pages back when you said to dig up your posts in other threads. Forum ettiquette says that you shouldn't have to repeat yourself on one thread, but if it's somewhere else, at least link us to it.
jeepdavetj

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #212 on: 08-17-2010 19:08 »

Wow, I now know what its like to feel like the dumbest person in a room. tongue
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #213 on: 08-17-2010 19:45 »

That's ok, just say something that sounds complicated,  that way you can scare off those that don't really want to pay attention to the conversation.  laff
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #214 on: 08-18-2010 06:06 »

You keep saying this and yet you refuse to explain how it contradicts the show's past.
And you have never answered my point that The Why of Fry already contradicts Roswell that Ends Well and Bender's Big Score.
The best I got was several pages back when you said to dig up your posts in other threads. Forum ettiquette says that you shouldn't have to repeat yourself on one thread, but if it's somewhere else, at least link us to it.

I've explained this at least twice now. TWOF doesn't contradict anything. It's already an open loop (event spiral) within the timeline. It follows the same model. Dig up my posts on TWOF and RTEW if you're that convinced they're contradictory models.

You do the legwork. You're the one championing an incorrect interpretation.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #215 on: 08-18-2010 07:27 »

Right, seeing as I can't sleep, I gave in and read over all of your posts in the The Late Philip J. Fry thread. The closest I could find to you explaining how cyclical universes can't work within the time-travel rules already established was this:
Quote
Since we know that paradoxes can happen, do happen (BBS) and are corrected (BBS), we must assume that the paradox indicates a cyclical model of time, rather than an endless series of universes (which would indicate that there should be an endless parade of "arriving" time machines squishing the Professor, Fry and Bender, for the rest of time in "this" universe, for a start).
Why? Paradoxes correct backwards time travel. So far, we've only seen time-travel within one universe.
There wouldn't be an endless parade of 'arriving' time machines within a cyclical universe model. Just the one from 2 universes prior. Each one jumps forwards 2 universes and lands there. Simple. There was a diagram drawn up to explain this but you poo-pooed it because it wasn't fitting with cyclical time. I can't be bothered digging it up right now.

So yeah, this doesn't explain why cyclical universes contradict the past time travel episodes. None of your posts in The Late Philip J. Fry thread do. I can't imagine you've posted on this subject in any threads other than that one and this one.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #216 on: 08-18-2010 07:37 »
« Last Edit on: 08-18-2010 07:41 by totalnerduk »

I've said multiple times that stable loops a la BBS and RTEW cannot be formed within the CU model, and posted diagrams showing such. Since there are stable loops, the CU model does not work.

Obviously you've not read the posts in this or the other thread very thoroughly.

Why? Paradoxes correct backwards time travel.

That made no sense. Whatsoever.

There wouldn't be an endless parade of 'arriving' time machines within a cyclical universe model. Just the one from 2 universes prior. Each one jumps forwards 2 universes and lands there. Simple. There was a diagram drawn up to explain this

Yes, and the diagram is as flawed as the theory it represents. I've been over this with the creator of the diagram in #fc.
HobbsO

Crustacean
*
« Reply #217 on: 09-21-2010 00:24 »

Just read all this and must say, I REALLY love being a geek big grin
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #218 on: 09-21-2010 20:52 »
« Last Edit on: 09-21-2010 21:01 »

Wait a sec...if time is cyclical how many times have we witnessed this debate alone?? Are you telling me theres an infinite amount of times that I already have and will again read this thread? My head hurts just thinking about it. Im gonna edit this post cuz there was something on page two or so i found interesting and I havent gotten the hang of copy paste on this phone yet.     edit: Of course on quick glance I couldnt find it again and Im not rereading those pages right now, maybe tonight because it helped me fall asleep haha. Someone mentioned something about The Big Crunch and I thought someone else (maybe you tnuk?) disputed its occurrence in one of these models...could someone clarify that for me...?
Aki

Professor
*
« Reply #219 on: 09-21-2010 23:39 »

Wait a sec...if time is cyclical how many times have we witnessed this debate alone?? Are you telling me theres an infinite amount of times that I already have and will again read this thread? My head hurts just thinking about it. Im gonna edit this post cuz there was something on page two or so i found interesting and I havent gotten the hang of copy paste on this phone yet.     edit: Of course on quick glance I couldnt find it again and Im not rereading those pages right now, maybe tonight because it helped me fall asleep haha. Someone mentioned something about The Big Crunch and I thought someone else (maybe you tnuk?) disputed its occurrence in one of these models...could someone clarify that for me...?

You haven't. Your exact duplicate has.
Ghost and Horse

Crustacean
*
« Reply #220 on: 09-22-2010 03:53 »

For the love of god, nobody bring up this cyclical time nonsense again.
Fnord
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #221 on: 09-22-2010 10:43 »

No luck ... According to the cyclical time theory, it will happen again ... an infinite number of times.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #222 on: 09-22-2010 13:17 »

No luck ... According to the cyclical time theory, it will happen again ... an infinite number of times.

No. It will hapopen once, but that one happening will be repeated an infinite number of times. There's a subtle difference.
Ghost and Horse

Crustacean
*
« Reply #223 on: 09-22-2010 17:23 »

Damn it!
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #224 on: 12-22-2010 17:54 »

So... I won't be getting the DVD's for a while (not enough bones to sell off to CashBone), so I won't be able to listen to the commentaries for a while. Is there anyone out there who has bought them who will post what the writers say about their use of time travel in this episode? I'd like to be proven correct...about the writer's saying I'm wrong.
Aki

Professor
*
« Reply #225 on: 12-22-2010 23:03 »

I have a feeling that totalnerduk will claim he's right even if the writers claim the opposite.
Nibblonian Leader

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #226 on: 12-23-2010 06:47 »

...Which will happen an infinate number of times.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #227 on: 12-23-2010 12:18 »

Wait a sec...if time is cyclical how many times have we witnessed this debate alone?? Are you telling me theres an infinite amount of times that I already have and will again read this thread? My head hurts just thinking about it. Im gonna edit this post cuz there was something on page two or so i found interesting and I havent gotten the hang of copy paste on this phone yet.     edit: Of course on quick glance I couldnt find it again and Im not rereading those pages right now, maybe tonight because it helped me fall asleep haha. Someone mentioned something about The Big Crunch and I thought someone else (maybe you tnuk?) disputed its occurrence in one of these models...could someone clarify that for me...?

You haven't. Your exact duplicate has.

Not true.  All of the duplicates are different instances of the same people.  Kind of like the movie Groundhog Day or that one episode of X-Files.  We are infinitely doomed to this hell of repeating ourselves. frown
Aki

Professor
*
« Reply #228 on: 12-23-2010 14:41 »

winna, maybe you should go through the entire thread and read the arguments again. Repositioning the same belief means nothing if you have no arguments to go with it.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #229 on: 12-24-2010 02:33 »

The Universe is meaningless, so any position or argument that any of us have when placed within the set we call the Universe also pertain to meaningless, deriving its functionality from the parent.  All inherant things have no reason, no meaning, they are immaterial, as with this conversation.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #230 on: 12-24-2010 03:28 »

I have a feeling that totalnerduk will claim he's right even if the writers claim the opposite.

No, I'll just lose all remaining respect for them. What they portrayed onscreen and within the context of the wider show was CT rather than CU. If they intended something else, that represents a failure on their part.
Aki

Professor
*
« Reply #231 on: 12-24-2010 11:36 »

I have a feeling that totalnerduk will claim he's right even if the writers claim the opposite.

No, I'll just lose all remaining respect for them. What they portrayed onscreen and within the context of the wider show was CT rather than CU. If they intended something else, that represents a failure on their part.
So in other words, will you claim they are wrong (like Mushu's death) or will you claim they intended CU but failed in portraying it?
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #232 on: 12-24-2010 18:05 »

What the fuck? Stop trying to put what I say into "other words". The words I have given are pretty self-explanatory, you obnoxious little waste of carbon.
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #233 on: 12-24-2010 18:51 »

Regarding the commentary:


Bottom line: someone hoping that they spend a lot of time on the issue of different time-line theories will be disappointed, but there's a couple minors bones tossed that way I suppose.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #234 on: 12-24-2010 19:02 »

Different timelines?  Was that CU or CT?  I forget these abbreviations by now.
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #235 on: 12-24-2010 19:45 »

Actually, I'll post a (rough, while watching the commentary itself) transcription of the relevant parts.  There's not a LOT said, but:


In general, they don't seem to be taking it that seriously and the tone is pretty jokey.  From the first part, it seems like they're a bit ambiguous about it or haven't thought it through that much (Morton has to ask if it's a new universe, in his own script).  Most likely, fans can just pick whatever explanation or philosophical distinction that makes the most sense to them.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #236 on: 12-24-2010 20:53 »

So, the writers really don't know what they did. Nice. That means that CT is still valid... and since CU was never a valid explanation, it is still not valid. Excellent.
Louiswuenator

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #237 on: 12-24-2010 22:31 »

At the risk of derailing this debate, I have a few questions.

Assuming a Circular Time model:

Is backwards time travel possible over the "notch" in the spiral that represents a Big Bang, into a previous cycle?

If so:

Do any actions taken there create a paradox in the next cycle, or are any paradoxical effects reset with every Big Bang?

Can an entity exist in the same cycle with its counterpart, even though its counterpart has long died but its mass still remains in some form?  Does this break conservation of mass and energy, or can these forces somehow be shunted elsewhere?  Would this situation create a time paradox within this contained cycle?

How drastic can events be different in each cycle, yet still return to "normal" at the end of the cycle by effect of inertia?

Is it possible that our cycle is not the first?

That's all I can think of for now.  I am working on a story that relates to TLPJF directly and I want to make it as accurate as I can within Futurama canon and current understanding of physics.  I hope this isn't an imposition and help would be greatly appreciated as the answers to these questions are very important to this story and are preventing me from writing any farther at this point.

Thank you for your time.
Aki

Professor
*
« Reply #238 on: 12-24-2010 22:38 »

So in other words, will you claim they are wrong (like Mushu's death) or will you claim they intended CU but failed in portraying it?
What the fuck? Stop trying to put what I say into "other words". The words I have given are pretty self-explanatory, you obnoxious little waste of carbon.
I did not try to change your words, I merely asked because I wasn't clear on what you would make of the creators' words. The idea of holding a close to apparent truth over the word of the creator of said truth fascinates me. That's why I asked if that's what you meant.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #239 on: 12-25-2010 03:45 »

Oh for fuck's sake. That's not what I'm doing and you fucking know it. You're trolling. Which leaves me only one response: Drown in your own shit, you nasty fucking stain.

At the risk of derailing this debate, I have a few questions.

Assuming a Circular Time model:

Is backwards time travel possible over the "notch" in the spiral that represents a Big Bang, into a previous cycle?

Nope. This represents the beginning of time. The time travel model established in canon points to a literal travelling backwards through time being the way to get to the past, whilst the Professor's forwards time machine simply exists outside of time whilst travelling, allowing it to "hop" from the end of time and not be destroyed when the universe ends, then "land" at the beginning of time.


Quote
Is it possible that our cycle is not the first?

It's the only one. Think of a television set showing a repeat of the same program over and over again. The reception's bad so you get random static (this would be things like the professor killing Hitler, but things still turning out the same), but it's not a different program. You're still receiving the same transmission, even if patches do seem fuzzier sometimes.

Quote
That's all I can think of for now.  I am working on a story that relates to TLPJF directly and I want to make it as accurate as I can within Futurama canon and current understanding of physics.  I hope this isn't an imposition and help would be greatly appreciated as the answers to these questions are very important to this story and are preventing me from writing any farther at this point.

Thank you for your time.

No problem.

Quote
Do any actions taken there create a paradox in the next cycle, or are any paradoxical effects reset with every Big Bang?

Can an entity exist in the same cycle with its counterpart, even though its counterpart has long died but its mass still remains in some form?  Does this break conservation of mass and energy, or can these forces somehow be shunted elsewhere?  Would this situation create a time paradox within this contained cycle?

How drastic can events be different in each cycle, yet still return to "normal" at the end of the cycle by effect of inertia?

1. A paradox within the next cycle would only be possible with something crossing over from one cycle to the next, as with the professor's time machine. Returning to the previous go-round is not possible.

2. Yes, no, no. These are the short answers. There's an explanation for each, but I'm too lazy to type them out.

3. As drastic as you like. The effect of what I've chosen to call temporal inertia would exert an influence on events in order to re-align them as closely as possible to what would have happened had nothing been interfered with. Let's say that the PX crew travelled forward past the end of the universe, to the beginning, and then stopped off in revolutionary America to kill George Washington. Another man would take his place. Hell, somebody might even decide to impersonate Washington, and events would play out as we know them to have done. The PX crew prevent the Great Fire of London. It happens the next day, because nobody has learned anything. Or it breaks out next door. Or somebody (probably Fry, maybe Bender) drops an ignition source next to something flammable as they depart to travel forwards.

Eleanor Roosevelt, for example, was probably either replaced by an analogue very quickly, or was so totally unimportant by the time of her assassination that nothing changed save her wikipedia entry.
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.204 seconds with 18 queries.