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    Figuring out the Quantum Plot Holes in "Why of Fry": My theory « previous next »
Author Topic: Figuring out the Quantum Plot Holes in "Why of Fry": My theory  (Read 2352 times)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print
Gocad

Space Pope
****
« Reply #40 on: 04-14-2003 05:26 »
« Last Edit on: 04-14-2003 05:26 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by JDHannan:
i didnt see anyone else mention this but it seems obvious to me.  Enis was never fry's grandfather. 

I don't think so. If Enos hadn't been Fry's Grandfather at all, then why did he look like Fry ...


*Timewarping TOTP Dance*
------------------
vIta'pu'be
Action Jacktion

Professor
*
« Reply #41 on: 04-14-2003 11:11 »

They didn't say he changed history.  I wondered about that and rewatched that scene.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #42 on: 04-14-2003 18:20 »

So my explanation still holds water. And btw, whoever was on about the razor, it's Occams, not Ockhams.
Chanukah Zombie

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #43 on: 04-14-2003 18:39 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by totalnerduk:
So my explanation still holds water. And btw, whoever was on about the razor, it's Occams, not Ockhams.

Oh, ho, ho!  But that is yet another thing the philosophers cannot agree upon -- the spelling of the man's name.  They are both acceptable spellings.  I chose to use the one that had more aesthetic appeal for me.  Nice try though. 
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #44 on: 04-14-2003 18:43 »

Occams is the accepted spelling. Look it up in a dictionary of scientific terms.
Chanukah Zombie

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #45 on: 04-14-2003 19:58 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by totalnerduk:
Occams is the accepted spelling. Look it up in a dictionary of scientific terms.

Do you mind?  An ounce of effort on your part would have avoided a great deal of confusion.  Here, check these out when you have the energy:


The Columbia World of Quotations.  1996.
 
NUMBER: 42813
QUOTATION: A plurality should not be asserted without necessity.
ATTRIBUTION: William Of Ockham (1300–1348), British scholastic philosopher. Quodlibeta Septem. Scriptum in Librum Primum Sententiarum, Opera Theologica, I, p. 74 (c. 1320).

So-called “Ockham’s razor.”
 http://www.bartleby.com/66/13/42813.html   


The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes (1907–21).
Volume I. From the Beginnings to the Cycles of Romance.

X. English Scholars of Paris and Franciscans of Oxford.

§ 20. William of Ockham.
 http://www.bartleby.com/211/1020.html   


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.
 
Ockham's razor
 http://www.bartleby.com/61/46/O0024600.html   

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.  2001.
 
Ockham, William of
 http://www.bartleby.com/65/x-/X-Ockham-W.html   


The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes (1907–21).
Volume IV. Prose and Poetry: Sir Thomas North to Michael Drayton.

XIV. The Beginnings of English Philosophy.

§ 4. The Attitude to Scholasticism of Duns Scotus and of Ockham.
 http://www.bartleby.com/214/1404.html   


E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898.
 
Invin’cible Doctor.
 
William of Occam or Ockham (a village in Surrey), also called Doctor Singula’ris. (1270–1347.)
 http://www.bartleby.com/81/8919.html   


There are more of course.  What must I do to convince you?  It's all so punctillious anyhow. 
Grim

Professor
*
« Reply #46 on: 04-14-2003 20:02 »

[Seinfeld] Ooohh, Cat Fight...[/Seinfeld]

Give it a rest,
Plot holes are unanswerable because of so many takes timetravel.

Just try to understand it one way and forget about everyone else
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #47 on: 04-14-2003 20:07 »

If you read page 1, Grim, you'll notice that the plot has no holes as such, it's just that the mechanics of time-travel have to be interpreted in order to allow everything to work.

That said, your final statement is a saensible suggestion.  big grin

Zombie, I said a dictionary of scientific terms. Nothing you have said corresponds to this, so I can only assume your lack of intelligence has caused you to take personal umbridge with my helpful comments. Therefore I wish to declare the following:

You're a pillock.

Now that's out of my system, do lets continue the discussion over email (read my profile) in a civilised manner, rather than spamming this thread with irrelevant shite.

Thanks.
Grim

Professor
*
« Reply #48 on: 04-14-2003 20:10 »

I'll drink to that

(I posted on the first page so of course I read it :P)
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #49 on: 04-14-2003 20:14 »

Oh yeah. Chalk that one up to me being lazy.
Chanukah Zombie

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #50 on: 04-14-2003 20:49 »

 
Quote
You're a pillock.

Ah, don't get me wrong.  Most of your points remain valid.  I won't make the mistake of confusing the sayer with the said.  You're obviously a sharp thinker.  You're also a trifle rude, you know?  Certainly it's not the worst crime in the world but it does wear thin promptly.  All I ask is that you keep a respectful fingertip on that keyboard.  That's not unreasonable I trust.  I'll offer the same in return.  Onward then? 
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #51 on: 04-14-2003 20:52 »

Hmmm. That's a good plan. I try to curb the language for which I received an award, and you try not to provoke it... You have a deal.
SpaceCase

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #52 on: 04-15-2003 03:06 »

Ladies and Gentlemen!

You have just witnessed the gentle art of the compromise!

CZ, TNUK, you have my respect.
Chalic

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #53 on: 04-17-2003 03:52 »

A trifle rude?  I'm getting cheesed off just reading totalnerduk's posts and they aren't directed at me.    Just WHERE do you get all your infallible info about all things scientific?  Because from what I've read, all you've done is read a few Modern Physics for Dummies books.

If you'd like to have a contest of sorts about physics knowledge on a topic that IS at least partially understood, where you can't just make any statement and claim "you can't prove me wrong",  I'd be more than willing.
Also, stop trying to use the most sophisticated words you can find to impress everyone with your superiour intellect.  "Umbridge" and "Pillock" just sound pretentious wheras "Offense" and "Cad" work just as well, without making you sound like a jerk.

Lastly, it CAN be spelled either way, Ockham and Occam are BOTH acceptable spellings, and CZ totally called you on it.  For refusing to capitulate, I proclaim *you* to be a pillock.
Nixorbo

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #54 on: 04-17-2003 13:58 »

Anyone hear that digging noise?  That's Chalic digging up a dead argument.
Baddblood

Crustacean
*
« Reply #55 on: 04-17-2003 14:43 »

What ever happened to cartoon logic?
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #56 on: 04-17-2003 21:13 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Chalic:

Also, stop trying to use the most sophisticated words you can find to impress everyone with your superiour intellect.

Trust me, I'm dumbing myself down rather than trying to impress.

Mr. Chalic, I would suggest that if you're getting pissed off, you ignore this thread. I happen to have done more than read a "Dummies" book... I researched my posts in this thread before making them. Why don't you do some research of your own, seeing as I'm too lazy to argue any more.

A good start would be to read back through the thread, note anything that you disagree with and find something to disprove it. Then either post here or email me with it, and we can have a civilised disacussion rather than you sitting at home muttering to yourself. Yes, I do mhave a camera in your room.

 tongue  big grin

This is a great thread.
Chalic

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #57 on: 04-18-2003 02:03 »

To Nixorbo: 

Perhaps you're right, and what a very funny way to make your point (I laughed quite a bit), but I had to respond in some way.  Arrogance, even facetious arrogance, irritates me greatly, especially when it appears to be unfounded.

To Totalnerduk:

"I happen to have done more than read a "Dummies" book... I researched my posts in this thread before making them."

I noticed you didn't say "Actually, I have a doctorate in  Particle Physics with a minor in Quantum Theory from M.I.T., so you can go sink your head."  Wheras I *will* say that I have a Masters in Physics from Case Western University in Ohio, and am currently working on my doctoral thesis (with the aid of Professor Lawrence M. Krauss, perhaps you've read a few of his books in your "research" ), tenatively titled "Establishing a Lower Bound to Collapse"  (refering to a minimum mass limit for stellar black holes, which so far is listed as "somewhere between 2 and 3 solar masses" ).  So *please* don't dumb yourself down for me.  I'd really like to see you try even a little harder to show off your ability to look up words in a thesaurus.

As you can see, I'm posting this very early in the morning E.S.T., so I don't have time to reread all  of your posts right now, but when I get a chance, I will.  And If I just happen to find them too apocryphal to bother with, I'll print up a few copies to pass around over in Adelbert Hall.  Also, it's my birthday this weekand, so it will be around Monday or Tuedsay before I get to it.

Still feeling supremely intelligent?
CyberKnight

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #58 on: 04-19-2003 08:29 »

Witness the power of the internet.
Gocad

Space Pope
****
« Reply #59 on: 04-19-2003 10:56 »

Suddenly I feel small and insignificant...

[Morbo]I will destroy you all![/Morbo]


I'm watching you. Yes, YOU!
Chalic

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #60 on: 04-20-2003 01:47 »

Well, it seems Totalnerdek might not respond, so I'll resume my normal low-key and humble self now that the braggert has been silenced.

Hey Gocad, have you ever seen 12 monkeys?  What you're saying in your above spoiler seems like it should be right, but I think I disagree.  I like to think of time (because there's no definitive choice, so it's almost pick and choose) working along the lines as they are described in 12M.  The past isn't necessarily immobile, it's just that if you COULD change the past, it would have already been changed. 

The reasoning behind this is, if I suddenly right now decided to go back in time, and I killed your grandfather, we can't say that at that "moment' you cease to exist, because it's not the same moment (and also because relativity says there's no such thing as simultaneous effects) in time, in fact the moments are very seperated.  So the idea is, it may be possible for me to go back and kill your grandfather, but when I grow up, I can never meet you, because your grandfather was killed before your grandmother had your father, and thus you never existed.  I would just have to go back and time to kill him.  Yes, this brings up the point "how would you know to go back and kill him if his grandson never existed?".  This has lead many scientists to agree that even if certain theoretical possibilities for "time machines" could exist, it almost appears like the universe is set up to prevent such time machines from working properly.

A moderately quick example:  It's theoretically possible to use a wormhole under certain conditions to go backwards in time, but from a practical viewpoint, it's impossible.  Not because it would require technology that doesn't exist, but because with all the gravitational effects, you would have to get your ship through said wormhole in around 0.(65 zeroes, imagine it okay :P)1 seconds, which even traveling at say 99.999% the speed of light, would only allow you to travel a *truly* minor distance in space.

Very simple translation:  The time machine snaps shut far too quickly for anythign to be able to travel through.

Other time machines have even more what if questions involved, and it just seems like no matter how convuluted and extreme the circumstances, it's never even close to allowing anything alive to travel back in time.

An interesting field of interest, is the concept of sending a single particle backwards in time.  While we still have no remotely viable way to do this, it's far more likely that this could be acheived at some point in the future.

Anyway, I typed all this in a effort to get back on the previous topic.
Gocad

Space Pope
****
« Reply #61 on: 04-20-2003 03:55 »

Chalic, i have seen 12 monkeys and many other films ... some of them had also a plot that involved timetravel.
But as I said somewhere else, every science fiction film that in involves timetravel has his own theory how it should work. Therefore comparing these usually leads ... nowhere. Or somewhere. Who knows. I don't.
Kristi
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #62 on: 04-20-2003 04:01 »

Maybe fictional movies aren't the best place to get time travel theories.
Chalic

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #63 on: 04-20-2003 04:04 »
« Last Edit on: 04-20-2003 04:04 »

Well I was just trying to be polite, and get the thread back to it's previous topic.

Also, I disagree that you can't compare the time-travel devices from different movies.  Why not?  You can compare them to each other on the basis of which ones seem to be the most scientifically accurate, which ones seem like they're the most fun, there are any number of debatable topics about time travel in movies. 

I can understand not LIKING to discuss them, but that's a seperate issue isn't it?   tongue

Ah, but I disagree Kristi.  They certainly aren't the best place to look for time machines that in their use, seem theoretically possible, but they are a breeding ground for creative ways of interpreting the effects of time travel. 

We have ideas like:  "Each time you travel back in time, you cause a new universe to appear, that follows the changes you made, instead of the previous past of your old universe" and ideas like "You can go back in time, but you can never affect anything, and if you try, you will be prevented from doing so by circumstances out of your control" or "You can travel back in tme, and you can do anything you want, because the matter that makes up the people from that previous time, is not actually the smae matter that makes up your body, and thus, killing your grandfather doesn't actually affect you, because you're atoms have nowhere to go but stay, despite the fact that he will never father your father (or mother)"

These ideas aren't made up by scientists (mostly anyway) they're made up by writers.  And while they may not be right, they're certainly interesting to toy with and try to pick out the best bits of each.
Gocad

Space Pope
****
« Reply #64 on: 04-20-2003 04:18 »
« Last Edit on: 04-20-2003 04:18 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Kristi:
Maybe fictional movies aren't the best place to get time travel theories.


They aren't? Damn!

Then again, Star Trek did lead to a lot of real inventions. Just watch TOS and see for your self.

curses flood-control, again!
Kristi
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #65 on: 04-20-2003 04:32 »

I'm just saying, when people write a movie they usually aren't thinking about logic. Some time travel movie premises are insane.

I suppose you love Back to the Futurewink

P.S.- Happy birthday!  big grin
Chalic

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #66 on: 04-20-2003 04:37 »

I'm not a huge fan of BttF but it was good enough.  Thanks for the Happy birthday  smile ( I assume you meant me, I hope I was correct)
Kristi
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #67 on: 04-20-2003 04:39 »

Yes, I meant you.
Chalic

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #68 on: 04-20-2003 16:54 »

Hee hee hee...that deep voice is going to make me split a side.  tongue
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #69 on: 04-21-2003 19:40 »
« Last Edit on: 04-21-2003 19:40 by totalnerduk »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Chalic:
Well, it seems Totalnerdek might not respond, so I'll resume my normal low-key and humble self now that the braggert has been silenced.
 
Piss off shitface. If I'd been online since my last post I would have responded. Standby for an edit, ya' twat.[/QUOTE]

Edit: In answer to your question – yes I do feel supremely intelligent. Someone claiming to have a degree in some field I can’t be bothered to type the name of has just proved himself to be less intelligent than me for a start.

Your “usual low key and humble self” appears to have died. What I mean is that he hasn’t shown up yet. All I’ve seen of you on PEEL suggests the same dickhead thatr you’ve always been.

Is it co-incidence that since our little “disagreement” you’ve confirmed my theory? I’ve never seen 12 monkeys, but what you said about it backs up what I’ve been posting.

In conclusion, is your head up your own arse purely for warmth, or is it a medical condition?

Oh, and some free advice: my username is “totalnerduk”, not “TotalNerduk” or “Totalnerdek”. “totalnerduk”, all lowercase. Got it? Good.

There is no such word as "braggert". It's "braggart". Look it up.

My final advice: Go have some fun. You're way too uptight.
Chalic

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #70 on: 04-22-2003 05:59 »
« Last Edit on: 04-22-2003 05:59 »

Dear ToTalNerDuK,

LOL!  You took all this time to respond and you're still just as arrogant and vulgar as ever.  I'm a twat?  And you called me uptight...LOL  You'll notice that I didn't say I have a degree in Particle Physics, or Quantum Physics, or any of the other things that I inferred *you* might say you have.  I said I have a Masters in "Physics" and am currently working on my doctoral thesis. 

Since you were so very offended by my misspelling of "braggert" when it should be "braggart", I'll start nitpicking over your grammar mistakes.

Well, first we have the extra "[/QUOTE]" box that doesn't need to be there.  Second, we have an improperly used hyphen in your second sentence.  Third, you used the word "proved" when it should be "proven" in your fifth sentence.  As a side note, being lazy does not make you intelligent, so saying you're too lazy to type something or to look up something just makes you *lazy*, *not* intelligent.  Fourth, you have an extraneous "r" attached to the word "that" also in your fifth sentence.  Fifth, there is no hyphen in the modern form of the word "coincidence".  Perhaps you were using the archaic form.   tongue  Oh, and last and possibly least, "Good" is not a sentence, and thus should not have a period after it.  It could be an exclamation, and have an ! after it, but you didn't do that.

The fact that I happened to like how time travel is described in "12 Monkeys" does not constitute a proof of anything by the way.  As you yourself have so elequently said, no one can prove anyone wrong about anything related to the *effects* of time travel.  The *causes* of time travel are fairly well understood, and if you'd like to ask me about any of them, I'd be glad to give you a lesson in the mathematics behind them.  I'm not so sure your dummies books include that stuff.  But like I was saying, the effects are a mystery.  So if I happen to think that the way it is described in "12 Monkeys" is more of a possibility than in some other movie, that is perfectly acceptable, and you have no cause to question it.  Of course, you've been one-upped, and you don't need a cause.

Lastly, if you want to doubt the validity of my claim that I am currently enrolled as a graduate student, you can contact one of my professors; his name is Dr. Lawrence Krauss.  There *are* actually people out there with degrees nerdy.  You were bound to encounter someone who knew more than you at some point.  I'm certain someone of your extreme intellect can figure out a way to contact him without me giving you any help.

My final advice:  Respond quickly, I want to see you try harder.  This time don't use so much profanity.  Despite the fact that you KNOW you are the most intelligent person in the world, people look down on swearing, and will think less of you for it.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #71 on: 04-22-2003 18:04 »

I don't doubt the validity of your claim, all spelling is relastive, and how have I been one-upped when everything I've said either: has been backed up in some form by your disjointed half-statements, or: is 100% scientifically valid, and holds more water than the oceans of Decapods 10?

Nice try though, you're doing better.

Piss shit twat cunt bollocks fuck bastard arse tongue
DrRotmos

Crustacean
*
« Reply #72 on: 04-22-2003 19:37 »

Chalic and totalnerduk:

You both are wrong, I alone am the greatest. Because as you might see my Username is DrRotmos, it doesn't say doctor for nothing, for you see, I am the single smartest being in all universes that has ever existed. What you say is wrong I define as right. Ha! Now you can't do anything because I defined you both as insignificant! Moahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! And to make sure that you won't be able to do anything against it I define everyone in all universes except me as unable to define.

Watch as I take over the world!

Now I define this post as finished.
Kristi
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #73 on: 04-22-2003 19:45 »

^ has a bigger ego than Bill O'Reilly
Chalic

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #74 on: 04-23-2003 01:09 »

^ Makes me laugh every time I read her posts, despite the fact that she's not trying to.

"Nice try though, you're doing better."

I'm significantly heartened to know you think so.  smile
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #75 on: 04-23-2003 18:08 »

Hmmm. I'll have to do somthing about that. Can't have happy people in this thread.
DrRotmos

Crustacean
*
« Reply #76 on: 04-23-2003 18:49 »

Psst, totalnerduk!

Break her kneecaps!
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #77 on: 04-23-2003 18:58 »

Naaah, I like Kristi. You, on the other hand have just asked me to break her kneecaps, so I'm not sure whether to like you or not.  tongue

:: gets out the sledgehammer ::
Grim

Professor
*
« Reply #78 on: 04-24-2003 07:41 »

christ are nerduk and chalic still having this bitch fest at each other... its like some word based boxing match...

hmm... should try to make some money with a PEEL pay-per-view!
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #79 on: 04-24-2003 16:21 »

Hey! That last post was me having fun with DrRotmos!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 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 0.184 seconds with 17 queries.