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 13301 times)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Print
Gopher

Fallback Guy
Space Pope
****
« Reply #80 on: 08-08-2010 18:38 »

he's using the Bender's Big Score definition of paradox, not the Back to the Future definition.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #81 on: 08-08-2010 19:24 »

...
So by arriving earlier, the writers maintain the possibility for cyclical time.  Had they not, then the CU would have been the only option.
Im not sure I follow. By arriving early(assuming CT) they kill their past selves, preventing them for making the trip through time to begin with. Which is a paradox.
So how does arriving early maintain the possability for CT?

If you read my earlier posts about loops and spirals, you'll see that this creates an open loop (as opposed to a closed loop, which can occur independant of CT). An open loop requires a CT model to function correctly.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #82 on: 08-08-2010 19:49 »

...
So by arriving earlier, the writers maintain the possibility for cyclical time.  Had they not, then the CU would have been the only option.
Im not sure I follow. By arriving early(assuming CT) they kill their past selves, preventing them for making the trip through time to begin with. Which is a paradox.
So how does arriving early maintain the possability for CT?

Hm.  Incidentally, when started considering the consequences of them having arrived later, it could only have been a CU model, because otherwise a CT model would not have made sense.

Imagine this; they arrive later, so the latter crew (let's call them crew C) will time travel forward in time and commit the actions as crew A did.  Crew A never interacts with crew C and D, whom interacts with one another in a similar loop.

This does not mean it is contained within four loops or universes, but it is a continuous loop throughout all timelines/universes/loops/whatever.  So if the crew had too late to kill themselves, the whole plot with Leela being old and lonely could not have happened in CT model, because then there is no real first universe.  But in a CU model, this is plausible.

So by avoiding doing that, it seems like the writers are hinting that we are talking about CT model rather than a CU model.

I originally thought when I watched the episode that they were just going to arrive later than the former crew and completely forget about that, but no.
Fnord
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #83 on: 08-09-2010 08:56 »


All I can think of when I read the majority of this thread is that the writers must be laughing at the forum. I can't wait to see whether they'll mention this arguing in the DVD commentary.
DaJacksterN

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #84 on: 08-09-2010 09:46 »

While sadly being unable to contribute anything to this flurry of theories, I would like to say thanks to everyone who has given their input regarding the cyclical nature of time, and whether the science behind this episode could really have worked.
It's added a new dimension of thought for my mind to chew on, as well as a pleasant throbbing sensation.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #85 on: 08-09-2010 18:35 »
« Last Edit on: 08-09-2010 18:38 »

Wait a minute.  There is one thing that blows the entire CU theory out of the water.  When they are fast-forwarding through time, we see Yivo from The Beast with a Billion Backs. in that movie Yivo says he saw the "Big Bang and was like woh..."  Unless Yivo's universe has the exact life span and also follows a CU theory, then the two univeses would not have collided.  This means that we wouldn't have seen Yivo's tentacles.  if time in the crew's universe cycled at the point of the big bang, this would explain why we see them.  But the crew's universe would have to cycle independently of  Yivo's.  sorry my diagram is crappy.

                             \/ Yivo's\/        Big Bang            end of movie
_____________________________ __\/_______________\/_________________________________
                                                      /                              \
                                                    /                                 \  
                                                   \              Crew's          /    
                                                      \                            /
                                                          \ ____________ /

CT is the theory i go for...
FemJesse

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #86 on: 08-09-2010 19:59 »

That's true! Yivo isn't part of our universe he's admiring it from the anomaly.

I guess all the universes could be synchronized, but that might be a stretch...
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #87 on: 08-09-2010 22:27 »

Presumably Yivo was born well after the years 3000-3010 and then that old universe died and ended and then he saw the big bang as the universe started again, but it was all new to him so he was like 'woah'.
The old universe was like a pensioner, whereas the new universe was like a sexy, 20 year old blonde.

Yivo's universe may well work in a similarly cyclical way as well, but it'd just have to be staggered with him beginning and ending at different points to our universe.
Susantheboil
Poppler
*
« Reply #88 on: 08-10-2010 14:41 »

Not to be rude, but keep in mind that what Yivo said was "I saw the big bang and was, like, whoa!  Only when the anomaly opened..."  The reason we don't see Yivo is that it was observing the universe only.  I hope I understood the confusion.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #89 on: 08-10-2010 16:52 »

We're discussing the fact that Yivo is from another universe but his interaction with 'our' universe happens again and again each time that the universe is reborn, which suggests that his universe is cyclical like ours. But he also mentioned seeing our big bang which suggests otherwise... unless like I said, his and our universes are staggered so to speak. His begins, ours begins, his ends, ours ends, infinitely.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #90 on: 08-10-2010 19:11 »

But at the end of the movie Yivo had Coleen, and unless shklee (sp?) was a dirty rotten cheater... sklee wouldn't have been looking or even glanced when the big bang happened again.  Yivo doesn't seem like a cheater to me... so Yivo's universe must either follow a bigger loop or a straight line...
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #91 on: 08-10-2010 20:18 »

No...

1. Yivo's universe has its big bang, Yivo is 'born'.

2. Our universe has its big bang. Yivo looks at us and is like 'woah'.

3. The events of The Beast with a Billion Backs happen, leaving Coleen in Yivo's universe.

4. Colleen dies of old age. Yivo presumably eventually dies of old age. Yivo's universe ends.

1. Yivo's universe is reborn with a new big bang, it starts all over again.

2. Our universe is old and eventually 'dies'. We have a new big bang, the universe starts again. Yivo looks at us, to him we are 'a new' universe. Scklee's like 'woah' again.

This loop goes on infinitely.
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #92 on: 08-10-2010 21:16 »

I always assumed Yivo was lying. He constantly lies throughout his stay (for example, he wasn't alone. He has at least two species living inside him) so I figured the trillion years of solitude and seeing the Big Bang was just a sob story he made up to garner sympathy.

That said, let's assume that cyber_turnip is correct, that Yivo's universe is staggered compared to ours, with his beginning before ours begins and ending before ours ends. It doesn't really matter since it doesn't prove one theory or the other. His universe is completely different to ours so it doesn't have to follow the same timeline as ours. All that's really necessary is that his universe has to have the exact same life span as our universe so he can perform his actions at the proper time, otherwise this has eventual ramifications for the CU theory (though none that will ever be shown on the show) since any difference in life spans between the two universes (even the smallest possible frame of time) would eventually lead to a time when Yivo's universe is born after ours (thus he doesn't see the Big Bang), or it/he ends before the events of TBWABB (thus that movie's events involving him don't happen (since he'd be dead)), or a myriad of others I don't feel like conjecturing about. This isn't a problem with CT, since then everything goes on as it should.
Erdrik

Professor
*
« Reply #93 on: 08-10-2010 22:02 »

not really. I don't see "complications" for CU.
Even if there are times when he doesn't pop into our universe, that won't change that he did pop in at U#1, 2 and 3.
It just means there is a pattern to when he pops in and when he doesn't.
And since, as you said, "none [of] that will ever be shown on the show" there is no way to know what the pattern is or even how it will effect our Universe.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #94 on: 08-11-2010 00:17 »

In  Yivo's universe, people never age... so she wouldn't have died of old age.... and i think his concept of loneliness was that the species were not intelligent and that he was the only intelligent one in that universe, so the species did not offer any companionship... though i have to admit that the seeing the big bang was probably a sob story. But I digress... i tstill means that the crews universe would have to have cyclic time...Right?
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #95 on: 08-11-2010 03:49 »

Meh, I imagine Yivo would have died somehow, eventually. And I always took it that he was somehow sustaining their immortality... something I admittedly forgot about.

But yeah, it doesn't mean the crew's universe has to work within cyclic time; both cyclic time and cyclic universes could work with Yivo. Although, admittedly, cyclic time would keep it simpler and easier.


But then, I doubt the writers took Yivo into account in all honesty. So if he were to contradict something about the episode, I think it'd be a goof more than anything. Not confirmation of this or that.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #96 on: 08-11-2010 04:35 »

Since Yivo's universe operates independantly of ours, either the CU or CT models could hold true for his plane of existence. Either way, his timeline is the same length as ours, but slightly out-of-sync.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #97 on: 08-11-2010 05:34 »

Yivo's timeline doesn't necesarily have to be the same length as ours, as you just said, yivo's universe operates independently of ours... that is true until the big bang and then continues to do so after TBWABB... our universe can loop around again and again, while yivo's continues in a straight line.  we encounter shkler every time, but shklee only experiences us once.  Or it could be synchronized with ours, but time moving at a different rate.  mapping out existence this way (using units of time, say 1 million years per inch, in example) it could make a loop bigger or smaller than our's...  there is no guarantee that the universes are the same length, nor that yivo's makes a loop, or repeats itself.... i'm just saying that with yivo in the episode CT makes more sense.  at least to me it does...
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #98 on: 08-11-2010 06:00 »

No. Just no. CT does not work that way. Argh. I have no idea where to begin pointing out what doesn't work with your post.

So I'm just going to say no. No, no, no, no, no. Just no. No!
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #99 on: 08-11-2010 23:25 »

My brain's a burnin' and the only thing'll cool it is this post!

I had a lot of time to think about TLPJF yesterday and it's caused me to consider a bunch of radical thoughts about previous episodes and the nature of the universe revealed in order to make it all fit together. I'm about to drop some bombs.

I think part of this "goof" thread has had the debaters disagreeing over what is admissible as evidence toward their theory and what isn't. This is how we recently came to discuss Yivo's appearance in the flash-forward sequence, specifically his claim that he saw the Big Bang. I'm here to state that I don't think that was ever proven either way, but I can make a good claim that not only is he a filthy liar, he had to be.

Yivo is a liar. We know this. He contradicts himself multiple times during his appearance and can be fairly glib. At one point he claims to have not known anyone else existed till the rift opened, yet later he claims that human visions of heaven are a result of a psychic message he sent. This is an example of his contradictions. This is part of the reason why I don't believe him when he says he saw the Big Bang. Another reasons is that it conflicts with a Parabox.

In The Farnsworth Parabox, Professor Farnsworth doesn't create Parallel Universes, merely a device that contains them in cardboard boxes which happen to allow travel into them. This means that all those parallel universes already existed but there was no "door" into them. Considering all the parallel universes visited had their own versions of the crew and their own event involving the creation of many parallel-universe containing boxes, this also means that they would have all had to have similar events to match up with Universe A. This means that all those universes have the exact lifespan of U-A in order to match up the events as perfect as they did. This leads me to the idea [preposterous theory]that all universes have the exact same life span![/preposterous theory]

A parallel universe is merely a universe that exists independently of ours. These universes represent different takes on the whole of causality. This could mean their events (creation of galaxies or people born) have similarities to ours (like all the ones that the crew visited in TFP) or completely different (like Yivo's). That said, the very fact that universes are capable of interacting with each other means that universes must share something in common in order for those interactions to exist. One of those common things is existence. It's not too much of a stretch to consider that if universes share the very act of existence in common, then they share the basics of space-time in common. All universes existing at the same time, in independent space. This would mean that whatever theory is official would apply to all universes. This means that if CT is the answer, then Yivo is a liar and has to be because of the cyclical nature of time in all universes (like I said, it was nothing more than a sob story).

While not specifically something mentioned on the show, I have cause to believe that the CU theory has problems that conflict with space-time. If Time and Space are intrinsically connected, then one can't exist without the other. This would suggest that if Time did not have a limit (an end), then neither would Space. Thus, the universe shouldn't end, but instead go on and on forever (and grow larger, infinitely). Alternatively, if time is cyclical, then so is space and they both have finite lifespans/sizes/limits that go round and round.

Finally, there is an issue involving the Nibblonians. The Nibblonians claim to have already been 17 years old when the Big Bang occurred. Now, whatever theory is supported, we know that they definitely did not "transfer" over from a previous iteration of the universe, since that not only has genome problems (a species that is over 1x10^25th years old would have some fairly mutated genes), but it also doesn't solve the problem of where they originally came from or how the transfer took place or how contradictory the 17-years old statement would be then. So, with those problems in mind, it seems fairly likely that the Nibblonians meant that when the Big Bang occurred, they exploded into existence with it, already 17 years old. This seems supported by Eternium's position in the exact center of the universe. This doesn't mean that they were just fully formed 17-year olds when the universe began. If we see the Big Bang as a lot of matter (Space) exploding into existence, and since Time is connected to Space, then we can postulate that Time also explodes into existence at the beginning of the universe. Thus, with a lot of Time (I know this sounds weird, just go with it) at the beginning of the universe, The Nibblonians could have spent that first millisecond of time alone and in a state of relativity, experiencing 17 years in a millisecond.

This thread is never going to die!
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #100 on: 08-11-2010 23:34 »

It is when the commentary comes out.  No wait, that will just bring it up again!
Erdrik

Professor
*
« Reply #101 on: 08-12-2010 00:51 »

... If we see the Big Bang as a lot of matter (Space) ...
Ummm... Maybe Im a bit skew'd in the head, but I think of matter as matter, and the empty void that matter floats in as "space". Hence why it is called space. (In my understanding/view)
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #102 on: 08-12-2010 01:01 »

What's dark matter then?
Gopher

Fallback Guy
Space Pope
****
« Reply #103 on: 08-12-2010 01:02 »

I believe dark matter is the formally defined as "the shape of one of the holes in the standard model."
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #104 on: 08-12-2010 01:08 »

I find that offensive!  How dare you say that about black people!

Now, back on the matter (warning: pun!).  Why does the universes have to be the same time length?  Why do they have to be in or out of sync?  I have no problem with the notion that when time wraps around in our universe, you get back to beginning of ours, but if you interact from another universe to ours at any given point, you will act with the record that is currently playing.

Time isn't lines, people.  It's some serious crazy stuff, and it can be messy for all sorts of reasons across universes.  Maybe to Yivo the Big Bang was like a couple of months ago!
Erdrik

Professor
*
« Reply #105 on: 08-12-2010 01:10 »

What's dark matter then?
As if I would know. And I don't have access to the tech and funds to find out.
But if yer wanting a guess outta me, Id say a form of matter(and possibly energy) that interacts with normal matter/energy in a very different manner.
Or human error.
But like I said, I haven't the foggiest.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #106 on: 08-12-2010 01:59 »

@ FistfulOAwesome ... Why?! you just broke my brain into a thousand tiny little pieces... confused i need super-glue...  anyone know how to put a cerebellum back together...  Svip started putting it back together with his post, but then it broke it again...   cry
soylentOrange

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #107 on: 08-12-2010 02:54 »
« Last Edit on: 08-12-2010 02:56 »

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the writers did a fantastic job of showing the evolution of a universe that doesn't experience cyclical time.  

There were a couple of things in particular:

1) The universe experienced "The Big Rip"

We know today that our universe is expanding, and not only expanding, but doing so at an accelerating rate.  This is not something that is expected to happen in a closed universe (i.e. one that experiences cyclical time).  Eventually, if time is not cyclical, this expansion will increase in speed to the point that space is expanding between objects faster than the speed of light.  When this eventually happens billions of years from now, objects that we can see today will steadily recede from us until they are no longer visible.  In other words, you'd get Farnsworth's statement "The galaxies are receding!".  If time is cyclical, on the other hand, then things will stop receding from us, and actually start approaching us again.  Eventually everything would crash headlong into itself in a gigantic "Big Crunch".  Basically, the entire Universe would run backwards.

2) The last proton decays

This would never happen in a universe that experienced cyclical time, because the universe would never last that long.  It is, however, entirely what you would expect in a universe that doesn't experience cyclical time.

3) If time is cyclical, then how did Fry/Bender/Farnsworth survive the reboot?

Yeah, okay, this is a weaker argument, but as many people have pointed out, space and time are not seperate things.  If the time component of spacetime is cyclical, then so is the space component.  At the moment of the Big Bang, spacetime is a singularity.  The entire volume of the universe is infinitely small.  Not much room for a time machine in there.  So, unless the time machine is somehow outside of spacetime (and where exactly would that be?) it wouldn't survive.

The one problem with time not being cyclical is that that Farnsworth's statement about 'fixing the time travel paradox' isn't strictly valid because there is no true paradox.  There are, however, two versions of three of the characters present at the same time, and the copies are present because someone travelled through time.  That's the essence of the paradox, granted without the universe-shattering violations of things like conservation of mass and the laws of thermodynamics.

also:
Quote
I believe dark matter is the formally defined as "the shape of one of the holes in the standard model."
LOL.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #108 on: 08-12-2010 03:43 »

In a CT model, the universe could expand indefinitely. It would be able to last as long as was necessary for the last proton to decay... because the end of all things is what triggers the "respawn". No need for a big crunch. Things can fly outward at the speed of light until they are no longer, well, until they no longer are, if you see what I mean.

CT doesn't necessarily mean that everything starts running in reverse, Soylent. You're not looking at it from a CT perspective, but from a closed universe perspective. Technically two very different things, although a different CT model would exist in a closed universe.

Think Open Universe + Cyclical Time, and things should start to make sense. I know it might be a headfuck to combine them, but that's the nature of Futuramaverse time travel. A headfuck every time.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #109 on: 08-12-2010 03:57 »

Yay! People are helping me fix my mind.  okay, about the time machine being out of space time... what if the nature of the time machine was that it exists in another dimension during travel, but still maintains a view of the other dimensions.  that way it could exist in it's own separate space, while still witnessing the end and beginning of the universe!  Hell it might even have the capacity to make it's own little outer-dimensional pocket.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #110 on: 08-12-2010 04:10 »

The idea of "other dimensions" is a total misnomer. Another phase or plane of existence is perhaps closer to the right way to think of it. Space and time are the first four dimensions... there are a total of eleven.

Space (3 axes)
Time
Probability
Possibility

Those are the ones I know... there are others. Ask a theoretical physicist for more information. Anyhow, the simplest way for the time machine to work would be to simply disconnect from spacetime, whilst remaining connected to the rest of the dimensions of reality, allowing spacetime to flow past it. Effectively, a new and seperate continuum would operate inside the craft, and the craft inside of this new contiuum (think of a hypercube).

The established continuum of spacetime flows past and around the craft, with the professor's control mechanism determining how fast they go (ie: how severe the disconnect is), and thus the craft is outside of spacetime whilst it journeys, yet the occupants are still able to watch what's going on.
soylentOrange

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #111 on: 08-12-2010 05:29 »
« Last Edit on: 08-12-2010 05:30 »

tnuk, I don't know what your background in cosmology is, but I have certainly never come across the theory that you mentioned in my studies.  It's not in "Carroll and Ostlie", which is the text that my graduate astrophysics class used.  I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure how a cosmology like that would work.  Friedmann's Equation is generally used to predict the evolution of the universe:



Are there other models currently accepted by the scientific community?  Using Friedmann's Equation, its hard to get a cosmology like you suggest.  The density parameters either give you a universe that expands forever with or without inflation, or a universe that experiences a Big Crunch.

Or are you just  basically telling me, "dude, it's a cartoon.  The rules can be whatever the hell we want"?  Because that works too....

Quote
okay, about the time machine being out of space time... what if the nature of the time machine was that it exists in another dimension during travel, but still maintains a view of the other dimensions.

Tnuk is right, the phrase 'other dimension' gets used for just about everything except for what it really means.  There are four dimensions that we know about for sure, three physical ones (up and down, left and right, and back and forth) and one time dimension.  The crazy quantum mechanics guys will tell you that there are up to 11 total physical dimensions, and we just don't notice most of them because they're 'curled up' around themselves.  Whatever the hell that means.  Those dimensions are just like the other physical dimensions.  They're part of spacetime, and if spacetime collapsed in upon itself in a new Big Bang, anything moving along those dimensions would be as boned as anything else moving in the dimensions that we're familiar with.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #112 on: 08-12-2010 05:41 »

 
tnuk, I don't know what your background in cosmology is
None.
Quote
but I have certainly never come across the theory that you mentioned in my studies.  It's not in "Carroll and Ostlie", which is the text that my graduate astrophysics class used. 

Well, it's a combination of a total ass-pull, and what I *do* know about cosmology. Basically, I'm suggesting that the universe will expand until all matter decays and there's totally nothing left. Spacetime will simply cease to exist. This fits with what the Professor observed.
Quote
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure how a cosmology like that would work.

I might be wrong. It's always a possibility. But within the Futuramaverse, I think I'm if not correct, then in the right area.

Quote
Friedmann's Equation is generally used to predict the evolution of the universe:



Are there other models currently accepted by the scientific community? 
No idea.
Quote
Using Friedmann's Equation, its hard to get a cosmology like you suggest.  The density parameters either give you a universe that expands forever with or without inflation, or a universe that experiences a Big Crunch.

Nothing lasts forever, but I see no reason why it can't expand until there's nothing left, or at least so little left that spacetime becomes thinner than an anorexic teenager.
Quote
Or are you just  basically telling me, "dude, it's a cartoon.  The rules can be whatever the hell we want"?  Because that works too....

That would be my last resort. Trying to come up with a model that works is more fun.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #113 on: 08-12-2010 18:28 »

i didn't mean  dimensions in the actual physical dimensions... i meant it in the sense of  another physical space... with it's own time stream... like creating it's own plane of existence connected to but separate from our own...
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #114 on: 08-12-2010 18:29 »

You mean a 'parallel universe'?  Not that is parallel in the sense that everyone is identical, but that it exists at the same time frame; or parallel with us.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #115 on: 08-12-2010 18:59 »

Yes, but inside our own.  like it exists in a bubble not experienced by anyone who is not in the machine, thus it can travel forward without being stuck in one spot and everyone having to move around it.  it's there but it's not.
FutureJan

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #116 on: 08-12-2010 19:01 »

thus able to survive a 'resetting' or recreation of the universe.
FemJesse

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #117 on: 08-12-2010 19:06 »

I still don't buy time as the 4th dimension. Time is so fleeting and specifically relative.

I think the 4th dimension will someday be expressible similarly to how we express three dimensions as X,Y and Z, only that we are unable to experience it with current physics theory.

As Michio Kaku once put it, We are like gingerbread men on a table, unable to concieve of "up and down." To the Gingerbread men, there are only two dimensions.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #118 on: 08-12-2010 19:33 »

But if you think about it, time is expressable similarly to the dimensions X, Y, Z -it's just that we can only see a cross-section of it at any one time.

Your fourth-dimensional self would be a snaking thing that starts from your conception all the way up until your death. If you want to get technical, we'd actually see all of the particles that make you up well before the conception and your dead body as it rots and all the particles going off to new things, but that's just confusing the matter.

In theory, if we were 2-dimensional beings, we would only be able to see two-dimensional cross-sections of 3 dimensional objects and so the third dimension would be similar to time to us. We, as three-dimensional beings can only see cross-sections of 4 dimensional objects.
FemJesse

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #119 on: 08-12-2010 23:21 »

So time is just a facet of the 4th dimension? Seems plausible.
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 0.194 seconds with 17 queries.