Cyclical Time (CTSU) vs. Cyclical Universe (LTMU) - Let's Get Ready to Rumbleeeee!

[Reply #40 on:]

Do you have to be so harsh? I'm just confused and curious...

So, in the end the original Fry, Bender and Professor being killed was just by chance, and the Professor's words meant nothing. Got it.

[Reply #41 on:]

Do you have to be so harsh? I'm just confused and curious...

No, you're (or were being) smug and not listening. That tends to bring out the sandpaper edge of my tongue.

So, in the end the original Fry, Bender and Professor being killed was just by chance, and the Professor's words meant nothing. Got it.

Close enough. Not quite there, but close enough. One minor point: the "original" versions survive. Think about it.

[Reply #42 on:]

Ok, can we now be friends?

*Offers hand waiting for a returning shake.*

[Reply #43 on:]

The only one which occurs to me as a problem is the post where you point out that the new universes are all shy the atoms comprising the time machine.

I did not think of that.

Um, I think you misunderstood that. The atoms comprising the time machine crossed over the discontinuity at the end of time, and thus were from the previous iteration. They're actually duplicated in the following iteration, providing yet another paradox. No iteration of the universe is missing these atoms... in every cycle bar the original, they are present as extra atoms, whilst at the same time being simply older versions of a set of existing atoms within that iteration.

It should also be noted that in this diagram:



the iterations are numbered from the "perspective" of these atoms, rather than the travellers.

Ok, can we now be friends?

Be less annoying, and I'll think about it.

[Reply #44 on:]

I wasn't annoying from the start...

You used to be a foul mouthed guy anyway, according to your WikiPEELia page.

[Reply #45 on:]

I wasn't annoying from the start...

Me - 1 You - 0

You really need to try and live up to your 'Nerd' title a little harder.

Oh yes?

You used to be a foul mouthed guy anyway, according to your WikiPEELia page.

Still fucking am. What's your point, cockface?

[Reply #46 on:]

Um... Well, I thought we could relate, but I guess not...

And fine, I was smug in that frist post, but I thought I had finally bested the mighty TNUK...

[Reply #47 on:]

The only one which occurs to me as a problem is the post where you point out that the new universes are all shy the atoms comprising the time machine.

I did not think of that.

Um, I think you misunderstood that. The atoms comprising the time machine crossed over the discontinuity at the end of time, and thus were from the previous iteration. They're actually duplicated in the following iteration, providing yet another paradox. No iteration of the universe is missing these atoms... in every cycle bar the original, they are present as extra atoms, whilst at the same time being simply older versions of a set of existing atoms within that iteration.

That's very convenient, since the only part of anything which highlighted a flaw in my position was the missing quality of these atoms. Even though you'll quote this and post more things, I'm satisfied in my mindlessness. :3

ALSO: TNUK, you may want to consider being a little less harsh to Danny, even though he asked a stupid question. Xanfor was doing spendidly. Heavens knows we all  act that way sometimes... except, perhaps, yourself.

[Reply #48 on:]

Thank you Chives....

even though he asked a stupid question.

Um.. Thanks.

[Reply #49 on:]

That's very convenient, since the only part of anything which highlighted a flaw in my position was the missing quality of these atoms.

The thing about the cyclic universe theory, which you seem to be clinging on to, is that it doesn't allow for the formation of a stable time loop or event spirals which are either stable or unstable (both terms discussed at some length in other threads devoted to this issue). Cyclic time, on the other hand (with temporal inertia built into the fabric of the universe) allows for both stable time loops, and stable event spirals. Further, the existence of stable time loops in the cyclic time model allows (and indeed requires) them to be preceeded by and formed from unstable event spirals.

The CT model corrects a number of flaws within the CU model, across multiple episodes of Futurama - again, this has been discussed in a number of other threads. It's not a question of there not being flaws in the model you're positing - there are flaws. To pick one example from many, in a CU continuity, there's nothing to prevent multiple timelines from being generated, or from events being "overwritten" with a new version. It's inherantly unstable without temporal inertia. Any scenario with time travel involved becomes increasingly vulnerable to alteration. The fact that Eleanor Roosevelt's assasination at the hands of Farnsworth doesn't appear to have appreciably changed anything (which would be an example of the Butterfly Effect, had it occurred) is evidence of the operation of temporal inertia within the Futuramaverse. This fits the CT model, whilst being at odds with the CU model.

ALSO: TNUK, you may want to consider being a little less harsh to Danny, even though he asked a stupid question. Xanfor was doing spendidly. Heavens knows we all  act that way sometimes... except, perhaps, yourself.

I probably do act that way sometimes, to be honest. It's not going to stop me from taking umbridge with people who rub me the wrong way though. It's not that he was asking a stupid question, it's that he was refusing to look at the answer which pissed me off - oh, and acting like he'd just scored some sort of point by being dumb. That's a sure-fire way to irritate me.

You're not recieving the blunt end of my conversation at the moment, because whilst you might be misguided, you're at least discussing it rationally and civilly, and not trying to score points. Which means we can have a proper conversation, and hopefully I can show you how the Futuramaverse operates within a Cyclic Time framework rather than the Cyclic Universe model. Hopefully. However, even if I can't convince you, we're still having a sensible, mature discussion about the mechanics of an impossible set of circumstances as they occur within a fictional continuity that's subject to change at the whim of its creators. Which has got to be worth something.

[Reply #50 on:]

Friendship accepted.

If that was aimed at me of course.

Also, I did look at the answer, but it still confused me.

[Reply #51 on:]

It was aimed at both of you.

Also, I did look at the answer, but it still confused me.

In that case, you were just being a dick instead of asking for it to be broken down for you. I'm not looking for an argument here, just making a statement. Which you shouldn't take as me having a go at you. It's actually helpful advice if you analyse it. What I'm saying is that if it confuses you, just straight-out say so... and ask nicely for it to be simplified.

Even I'm nice to people when I want something from them!

[Reply #52 on:]

My bad, next time I will be clearer.

Thanks, I think.

[Reply #53 on:]

That's very convenient, since the only part of anything which highlighted a flaw in my position was the missing quality of these atoms.

The thing about the cyclic universe theory, which you seem to be clinging on to, is that it doesn't allow for the formation of a stable time loop or event spirals which are either stable or unstable (both terms discussed at some length in other threads devoted to this issue). Cyclic time, on the other hand (with temporal inertia built into the fabric of the universe) allows for both stable time loops, and stable event spirals. Further, the existence of stable time loops in the cyclic time model allows (and indeed requires) them to be preceeded by and formed from unstable event spirals.

The CT model corrects a number of flaws within the CU model, across multiple episodes of Futurama - again, this has been discussed in a number of other threads. It's not a question of there not being flaws in the model you're positing - there are flaws. To pick one example from many, in a CU continuity, there's nothing to prevent multiple timelines from being generated, or from events being "overwritten" with a new version. It's inherantly unstable without temporal inertia. Any scenario with time travel involved becomes increasingly vulnerable to alteration. The fact that Eleanor Roosevelt's assasination at the hands of Farnsworth doesn't appear to have appreciably changed anything (which would be an example of the Butterfly Effect, had it occurred) is evidence of the operation of temporal inertia within the Futuramaverse. This fits the CT model, whilst being at odds with the CU model.

The biggest problem here is as such;

I don't believe in ANY cyclic model. I believe in a linear model, with stages. I don't think that I'm getting this across as clearly as I need to be, so if anyone would like me to head over to MS paint I will gladly do so.

ALSO: TNUK, you may want to consider being a little less harsh to Danny, even though he asked a stupid question. Xanfor was doing spendidly. Heavens knows we all  act that way sometimes... except, perhaps, yourself.

I probably do act that way sometimes, to be honest. It's not going to stop me from taking umbridge with people who rub me the wrong way though. It's not that he was asking a stupid question, it's that he was refusing to look at the answer which pissed me off - oh, and acting like he'd just scored some sort of point by being dumb. That's a sure-fire way to irritate me.

You're not recieving the blunt end of my conversation at the moment, because whilst you might be misguided, you're at least discussing it rationally and civilly, and not trying to score points. Which means we can have a proper conversation, and hopefully I can show you how the Futuramaverse operates within a Cyclic Time framework rather than the Cyclic Universe model. Hopefully. However, even if I can't convince you, we're still having a sensible, mature discussion about the mechanics of an impossible set of circumstances as they occur within a fictional continuity that's subject to change at the whim of its creators. Which has got to be worth something.

=P or perhaps I can convince you.

[Reply #54 on:]

I don't believe in ANY cyclic model. I believe in a linear model, with stages.

Sorry. Time doesn't work that way (at least in the Futuramaverse). A staged linear model is totally incompatible with RTEW, TWOF, and BBS. What you're thinking of is a series of cycles - universe exists, ends, a new one starts. That's the Cyclic Universe model. Which has some major flaws.

[Reply #55 on:]

I don't believe in ANY cyclic model. I believe in a linear model, with stages.

Sorry. Time doesn't work that way (at least in the Futuramaverse). A staged linear model is totally incompatible with RTEW, TWOF, and BBS. What you're thinking of is a series of cycles - universe exists, ends, a new one starts. That's the Cyclic Universe model. Which has some major flaws.

Wrong; it's not totally incompatible. If fact, it's the only method I have seen discussed which completely and properly encompasses all four shown examples of time travel.

Tonight, I'll explain how and why.

*edit*

Actually, I will be supporting Cyclic Universe, as you phrase it. Either way, tonight's the night. Woo!

[Reply #56 on:]

CU just doesn't work within the Futuramaverse, Chives. CT fits nicely and neatly. CU gives us holes to fill, questions to ask, and a hell of a lot more complexity to deal with. It's already been discussed to death on here.

[Reply #57 on:]

CU just doesn't work within the Futuramaverse, Chives. CT fits nicely and neatly. CU gives us holes to fill, questions to ask, and a hell of a lot more complexity to deal with. It's already been discussed to death on here.

I follow you, I do. CT gives us too simple a solution, though; some kind of reset button that warps us around to the beginning of a cycle, when such a farfetched solution is unnecessary. Futurama writers are comprised of plenty of minds mathematical and scientific, and they are people who wouldn't be satisfied with a lazy phenom as that described. I think that CU fits much more nicely than you give it credit.

I'll address the idea as a whole first, then how it works in each of the for instances of time travel, and then finally wrap up with a simple theory which should satisfy the most common of complaints. 'sides, if I'm just making a fool of myself, it will at least be entertaining.

[Reply #58 on:]

I follow you, I do. CT gives us too simple a solution, though;

Two words. The second is razor. I'll let you figure out the first.

such a farfetched solution is unnecessary.

So are you saying it's simple, or are you saying it's farfetched?

Futurama writers are comprised of plenty of minds mathematical and scientific, and they are people who wouldn't be satisfied with a lazy phenom as that described.

So it's simple, farfetched and lazy? Hm. I wouldn't necessarily say so myself. The CT model is simply logical, makes sense within the Futuramaverse, and unlike the CU model doesn't actually bring the mechanics of time travel from one episode into contact with those from another.

[Reply #59 on:]

I follow you, I do. CT gives us too simple a solution, though;

Two words. The second is razor. I'll let you figure out the first.

such a farfetched solution is unnecessary.

So are you saying it's simple, or are you saying it's farfetched?

Futurama writers are comprised of plenty of minds mathematical and scientific, and they are people who wouldn't be satisfied with a lazy phenom as that described.

So it's simple, farfetched and lazy? Hm. I wouldn't necessarily say so myself. The CT model is simply logical, makes sense within the Futuramaverse, and unlike the CU model doesn't actually bring the mechanics of time travel from one episode into contact with those from another.

Occam. I might surmise that, once understood, what I lay forth may be easier on the mind. We'll see. I'll post in an hour or two.

[Reply #60 on:]

I can't stand the suspense!

[Reply #61 on:]

To start, my visual aid.



The black line represents the ever-onward marching of time. This theory uses Einstein's proposed cyclic model, where an infinite number of identical universes follow one another. So the theory goes, as the great entropy created at the time of the Big Bang begins to slow down, so will the expansion of the universe. This will culminate in a single moment where outwards motion has ceased; from this moment onwards, the universe will begin to shrink down again into a single point. This idea is referred to as a "Big Crunch". This phenomenon can be observed in TLFJF, as the stars themselves pop like corn in a microwave and the universe begins to concentrate into a single point in the center of the screen.

Just as the characters resign to their fates as floating outside the defining area of space and time, the massive amount of energy and mass which is concentrated in that one spot begins again. In the Professor's own words, it is a second Big Bang.

Here comes the first important clarification; it is only the second Big Bang that the Professor can possibly be aware of. We have no way of knowing where in the infinite cycle the initial Futurama universe actually resides in. That universe, our universe, which I have marked as Universe 1, can be at any moment in the infinite cycle.

With this in mind, we can now see that we skip over two universes before the three remaining characters from the first arrive in Universe 4. We know nothing of universes 2 and 3 other than the fact that two deaths occurred, which both assuredly had strong influences in their universes which we will never see. The reason is that once the Big Crunch comes around, the details of the universe which was squeezed together become irrelevant. There is still the same amount of material, which has been shown to coalesce in the same manner each and every iteration (proven by the fact that all things which matter (stealthpun) are the same in Universe 4 as Universe 1).

How, then, do the other three examples of Time Travel work? Allow me to enlighten.

BBS is the simplest; we were shown that the Galactic Entity is the keeper of the Time Code, and he is the one who sends it to Earth in the movie. How would this entity, since it is shown not to be omniscient, know of any other universe other than the current one? Since this is the Time Code and Sphere from Universe 1, it's users are free to travel at any point in time during Universe 1 and no other time. Likewise, the Time Code and Sphere from any other iteration along the linear timeline would only be relevant in those many hundred billion years which lie between the adjacent big bang and crunch.

RTEW is next, and it works in the same way as BBS does. The wormhole had to send them somewhere else without squeezing them into an atomic singularity; it could have been anywhere timewise as long as it was within the predetermined constraints of the universe itself.

TWOF is last, and although an alternate dimension is involved we have to remember who was doing the time traveling. The brain spawn could only have sent Fry to a time which they perceived and were aware of, and for obvious reasons that time would have had to be within the lifetime of Universe 1.

Yes, all of this means that the beings we watched for the first several seasons are mostly dead now. Bender, Fry and The Professor, however, are still our originals from Universe 1. Their Universe 4 counterparts were squashed upon their arrival.

Here are some of the posed counterarguments I have predicted and taken the time to combat.

Q1. Why would the Professor invent the forwards Time Machine in Universe 1, and not in any other Universe, if Universe 1 is not first?

A. We know he invented it in 1 and 4, and while it is possible the deaths he caused in 2 and 3 led his later self not to invent the Forwards Time Machine, there is no way we can ever know. What is actually likely is that they did indeed go on to invent their machines, traveling forwards in the same way as always, inciting an altered but equal perspective of the timeline. No mention of Roosevelt, for example, was ever made in Futurama before TLFJF. Why would she be memorable, then; why would the Professor know who such a relatively unimportant woman was after civilization itself had been destroyed so many times? Perhaps she was spontaneously combusted via skylazer, and lived on in the history books.

Q2. The other query I have seen refers to the atoms which comprise the Forwards Time Machine; how can the Universe recreate in the same form each iteration when they are missing these atoms?

This stumped me for a little while, but the answer lies in the above question; if there is always a Forwards Time Machine outside the universe at any time the big crunch and big bang occur, and they have always and will always be outside of the universe, then no atoms were ever missing at all.

[Reply #62 on:]

No. No. No, no, no, just... no. Firstly, nothing coalesces back inwards in a big crunch. Everything down to subatomic particles decays into a zero point state. There is nothing left to coalesce.

There is no big crunch in the Futuramaverse.

This obviates your answer to the second proposed query, for a second point.

Thirdly, BBW, RTEW and TWOF exhibit predeterminism in the form of stable time loops. These are formed from an unstable event (for example, a paradox) and thereafter are self-reinforcing. An unstable event involving travel backwards is an open loop - an unstable event spiral. A stable open loop either occuring across multiple iterations of the universe or over and over within the same iteration but without forming a closed stable loop is an event spiral. None of these can form without some form of predeterminism, which I have named temporal inertia. The fact that Fry arrives in the 31st century in the third iteration (from Fry's POV) of the universe shows that the time travel incidents in TWOF and RTEW took place, and that events therefore are subject to this "lining up" or pre-sequencing phenomenon - anything else results in a destabilised continuity, subject to random, chaotic interference from the past and the future.

In addition, Roosevelt's death should take place in the "current" Futuramaverse on your timeline.

The CU theory is fatally flawed, as well as not making a great deal of narrative sense from the POV of an emotionally invested audience. In a CU model, not only do previous examples of time travel (particularly parts of BBS) raise awkward questions, but several of the main characters we got to know and love over the course of the original run and the movies are now deceased... leaving echoes in their place. Echoes at least twice removed from the ones we knew.

Basically, the CT model not only provides a framework in which everything makes narrative sense, allows the audience to actually have "their" beloved cast back, and obviates the questions that the CU model raises with regards to paradoxes, temporal inertia and predeterminism, it also allows RTEW, TWOF, BBS, and TLPJF to be unified without posing awkward questions. The CT model in fact, allows everything to make perfect sense, is the simplest way to combine everything we know about the way time travel works in the Futuramaverse, and also allows for the existence of paradoxes. Which are not strictly speaking possible if the timeline splits, as it must at several points within BBS and once within RTEW if the CU model holds (think about it, don't make me explain it, or I'm just going to start getting mad. I'm assuming here that you've a working knowledge at least of the discussions that have gone before this).

There is only one timeline in Futurama.  And regardless of your attempts to fuck it over; it always comes back to the version you left.  It's a bitchy timeline.

In allowing paradoxes (such as Fry being his own grandfather), we see that the Futuramaverse displays quite openly an aspect of the CT model, namely that a paradox can go unnoticed, and in fact not be paradoxical at all, because it was always going to happen, has already happened, and doesn't change anything that happened instead, because that's already happened as well. Which is itself paradoxical.

I've said before in GD that this is partially a question of semantics and that there's no functional difference, but it's also a question of tying together the different ways time travel has been treated within to show to come up with a consistent and logical model of the Futuramaverse, time travel, and how the two behave within one another. I know it's only a friggin' cartoon, but I like to try and make sense of things from an overall perspective.

My problem is that whilst I have described a plausible model for time within the Futuramaverse based on the entire canon and its continuity, people insist on describing their own particular models that are either only make sense when looking at TLPJF, or demonstrate severely flawed reasoning and are total and utter garbage.

However, a paradox is pretty much the same thing however you apply it. Something that should not/could not be, and yet is. In a CU model, there is no paradox, just confusion that can be sorted out and explained. In a CU model, the faux-paradox forms part of an infinite repeating string of identical events, whilst in a CT model, it is a true paradox, and stabilises an open loop, in which things happen, stay happened, an in fact rely on other things having happened in order to happen. The CU model has no such reliance, and thus time travel becomes fraught with the possibility for the destabilisation of the timeline, and/or the creation of unstable paradoxes. Nonlinear time (a timeline with loops, bubbles, and spirals) doesn't work in the CU model. Linear time would apply (time that moves forwards in a line, with backwards time travel itself being a paradox and forwards time travel being akin to a passing loop on a railroad).

We know from RTEW and BBS that nonlinear timelines occur in the futuramaverse, since stable loops and bubbles are formed within the timeline, so a CT model based on nonlinear time would seem to apply.

I'm running out of energy/enthusiasm for this. Really.

[Reply #63 on:]

No. No. No, no, no, just... no. Firstly, nothing coalesces back inwards in a big crunch. Everything down to subatomic particles decays into a zero point state. There is nothing left to coalesce.

There is no big crunch in the Futuramaverse.

In addition, Roosevelt's death should take place in the "current" Futuramaverse on your timeline.

These were the two tidbits which seem to require additional addressing.

For the first, how can you possibly prove that? It is no less or more right or wrong than saying that is not one; in fact, since we witness the crunch it front of our eyes, it holds only more credibility.

As for the second, Roosevelt's death occurs in the Current and 3rd iterations. I explained that in a portion of my post.

[Reply #64 on:]

For the first, how can you possibly prove that? It is no less or more right or wrong than saying that is not one; in fact, since we witness the crunch it front of our eyes, it holds only more credibility.

Since we witness nothing of the sort, that's utter hogwash. The evidence against it is substantial, as well.

Everything down to subatomic particles decays into a zero point state. There is nothing left to coalesce.

As for the second, Roosevelt's death occurs in the Current and 3rd iterations. I explained that in a portion of my post.

You said:

No mention of Roosevelt, for example, was ever made in Futurama before TLFJF. Why would she be memorable, then; why would the Professor know who such a relatively unimportant woman was after civilization itself had been destroyed so many times? Perhaps she was spontaneously combusted via skylazer, and lived on in the history books.

which explains nothing. You address the issue of her effect on the timeline in an almost laughable manner, but don't say why you've moved her death to a seperate run-through of the universe.

Roosevelt's death happens in the "current" iteration of the universe. It happens in the same iteration as the crew stop, and squish their "current" iterations. Your "current" iteration is labeled as the fourth time through. The one after Roosevelt gets killed.

[Reply #65 on:]

* Svip coughs.

[Reply #66 on:]

Although, svip's image does back up my point re: roosevelt, it illustrates the CU model. Which is wrong.

[Reply #67 on:]

It is actually an intentionally simplified form.  Don't let the term 'timeline' confuse you.  There is a reason I prefix them all with A.

[Reply #68 on:]

If you're saying that the CU model works though, then you are wrong.

[Reply #69 on:]

I did not say that, did I?  You are putting words in my mouth.  Stop that.

Though, 'iteration' might be a better choice of word than 'timeline'.

Edit: I like the GIF you made, however.

[Reply #70 on:]

Basically I made the post just so I could use the .gif without editing a post to insert it into. I put it together on the spur of the moment.

[Reply #71 on:]

It's an excellent GIF.  I love it.  Can't wait to see you use it in other discussions.

[Reply #72 on:]

I can see how it might be useful.

[Reply #73 on:]

Fave .gif of the month.

[Reply #74 on:]

6. I like making lists. It's a lot simpler than constructing sentences
and arguments with a linear flow to them. Lists are free to jump
around a bit more.

I would think you'd prefer not to number your lists, numbers are not a circular way of thinking. Unless you think of a clock...but we're not talking clocks here! We're talking time! That's circular! Alright I'm done here.

Since the cat's out of the bag anyway, what's with Fry's line in The Cryonic Woman:

Fry: So, while you're on the Probulator, tell me what brings you to
the future.
Man: Oh, well, I wanted to meet Shakespeare and I figured that
time was cyclical.
Fry: Nope. Straight line. [His control panel pings.] Ah, the
Probulator's done.

Comments? I just found it interesting.

[Reply #75 on:]

Can Fry be trusted?  Remember how surprised the Professor seems when he sees the Big Bang again?  Or would you use the argument that there is only one parallel universe because the Professor states that in I Dated a Robot, and thus The Farnsworth Parabox is wrong?

[Reply #76 on:]

I'm not arguing anything ducky, what were my words?

"I just found it interesting."

I posted it to see what people's reactions were, whether attributing it to Fry's lack of delta brain wave or Fry being completely intelligent and aware. I have no stake in this debate, I enjoy the friendly discussion though.

And at the time of I Dated a Robot, there may have well been just the one parallel universe. He accidentally created the others in Farnsworth Parabox, for all we know they did not exist before that episode.

[Reply #77 on:]

I'd assume that the parallel universes in the Farnsworth Parabox are a different class of "parallel" to the one with the hats. That one exists physically next to the other universe, whilst the parabox universes exist in in the same physical space as universe A, but at a different set of coordinates in phase space. Though they were described in the series as being the result of different decisions, they didn't branch off at the moment those decisions were made but existed in parallel for the entire time, only diverging at the decision point. As such they're more like potential universes, other configurations that the universe's quantum waveform could have collapsed to, and only appear to exist because there's no outside observer to actually collapse the universe into a single form.

As such they're completely irrelevant to the time travel issue. They won't be created by time travel because they already exist.

What is the speed of time?

[Reply #78 on:]

One second per second, as of my most recent measurement.

[Reply #79 on:]

Since we witness nothing of the sort, that's utter hogwash. The evidence against it is substantial, as well.

Everything down to subatomic particles decays into a zero point state. There is nothing left to coalesce.

That's the very defining point of the Big Crunch. Look it up online; the crushing of all matter into that singularity is the prerequisite for a second Big Bang. The only other need is for some sort of dark energy, or dark matter. If only we had something akin to that in the Futuramaverse, one with no clear purpose but which still managed to make it into our knowledge. 

As for the second, Roosevelt's death occurs in the Current and 3rd iterations. I explained that in a portion of my post.

You said:

No mention of Roosevelt, for example, was ever made in Futurama before TLFJF. Why would she be memorable, then; why would the Professor know who such a relatively unimportant woman was after civilization itself had been destroyed so many times? Perhaps she was spontaneously combusted via skylazer, and lived on in the history books.

which explains nothing. You address the issue of her effect on the timeline in an almost laughable manner, but don't say why you've moved her death to a seperate run-through of the universe.

Roosevelt's death happens in the "current" iteration of the universe. It happens in the same iteration as the crew stop, and squish their "current" iterations. Your "current" iteration is labeled as the fourth time through. The one after Roosevelt gets killed.

I guess I overestimated your ability to understand things. Read what I said again. Similar to my manner of answering shown earlier in this post, I try to allow my opponent to put together themselves what I am saying by giving them all the evidence of the sure possibility. If Roosevelt was known by the Professor, it makes the most sense that there is a major overlap between the four cycles. Svip understood completely.