About TWOF...

[on:]

Hello All,
I was just watching my tape of "The Why of Fry," and had a thought (said thought almost died of lonliness!)
For those few of you who might not have seen the ep yet,

Show spoiler

When Fry is in the Info-sphere getting ready to trigger the quantum-detonater thingy, he stops to query the database.
WHY DIDN'T HE ASK IT HOW TO WIN LEELA'S AFFECTION?!

Or is it just that "all the numbers in Fry's I.Q. are to the right of the decimal point" thang again?

I should like to hear your thoughts.

[Reply #1 on:]

Well, this is Fry. Instead of asking "what is the meaning of life?" or "is there a god?", he asks about frog stamps and dinosaurs. So, yes, I think he's just stupid...or wasn't thinking properly, because of all the stress.

[Reply #2 on:]

Things are relative. for some the biggest questions of life is "what's the meaning of life?" and "is there a god?", for Fry it's stamp glue contents and cool dinosaurs.

The Leela question would be on his list too, he probably thought he could ask more questions.

[Reply #3 on:]

i was waiting for him to ask that question too. but i'm sure he would have gotten to it if given more time.

[Reply #4 on:]

It's Fry... of course he's going to ask totally random out of this world questions.  Just like asking if life were more like a video game. 

[Reply #5 on:]

I thought he was gonna ask about Leela too.

He probably didn't because there wasn't enough time and there were more important questions. Or maybe he wasn't thinking of Leela then.

[Reply #6 on:]

 

Originally posted by Venus:
i was waiting for him to ask that question too. but i'm sure he would have gotten to it if given more time.

I agree with that.....

Another thing that made me wonder was, why is fry spitting when he crashes into the Info-sphere although he is wearing a helmet, and you can see clearly that his mouth never comes in contact with the brain....

[Reply #7 on:]

 He didn't ask how to win Leela because;

A. He's going to die.
B. It would make "The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings." a pointless episode.
C. THINK ABOUT IT!! What would be left to watch!? There would be no excitment to find out how Fry plans to win Leela's heart in the next episode.

[Reply #8 on:]

Well, yeah. But that's real-world issues. Fry's not limiyed by the Real Worldtm.

[Reply #9 on:]

This is probably a really stupid globvious question, but one thing I don't get is when Fry went back in time to push himself back into the cryo-tube, there were 2 Fry's. And when he'd pushed himself into cryo-tube, he vanished back to the infosphere, but does that mean that there are 2 Fry's?   

[Reply #10 on:]

 

Originally posted by Otis P Jivefunk:
he vanished back to the infosphere

Maybe he just vanished and now there's only one Fry.

[Reply #11 on:]

 

Originally posted by Otis P Jivefunk:
This is probably a really stupid globvious question, but one thing I don't get is when Fry went back in time to push himself back into the cryo-tube, there were 2 Fry's. And when he'd pushed himself into cryo-tube, he vanished back to the infosphere, but does that mean that there are 2 Fry's?    

Janeway: "Temporal mechanics give me a headache."

Look at it this way: there are two timelines, the original time line, and the one created when Fry told Nibbler about the Scooty Puff cycle.

Original timeline:

Nibbler push Fry into the tube ->
Fry get to the future ->
Nibbler joins them to protect Fry ->
Fry combat the brains ->
the Scooty Puff Jr breaks and traps Fry with the brains->
Fry returns to 1999, but because he doesn't stop himself from getting frozen he returns to the alternate universe with the brains ->
Fry spends eternity with a bunch of Brains who keep him out of their tightly nit clique.

But becuase Fry talks with Nibbler and tell him about the Scooty Puff cycle, Nibbler adds some modifications to it, and a new timeline is created.

Fry push himself into the tube ->
Fry get to the Future ->
Nibbler joins them to help Fry win Leela's heart and protect Fry ->
Fry combat the brains ->
Fry escape the infosphere on his Scooty Puff Sr. ->
Fry get a kiss from Leela

[Reply #12 on:]

About timelines let me post this:

Deanna Troi: Timeline? This is no time to talk about time. We don't have the time!... What was I saying?

END STATEMENT

[Reply #13 on:]

Thanx for the explanation, Teral, I really appreciate it  I think I get it now, it's because a new timeline is created 

[Reply #14 on:]

No problem, Otis, it's part of the job description.

 

Originally posted by Gocad:
About timelines let me post this:

Deanna Troi: Timeline? This is no time to talk about time. We don't have the time!... What was I saying?

Don't trust Troi, she's the one who didn't know a warp core breach could have fatal consequences.

[Reply #15 on:]

True, but my point remains valid. Timeline theories are really dangerous. People have been driven crazy by thinking about them.
Mwahaha!

[Reply #16 on:]

I personally dont believe in multiple timelines, I am of the school of thought that it is impossible to change anything in the future by altering the past, because by changing it u negate your reason for doing it in the first place.

[Reply #17 on:]

 

Originally posted by Grim:
I personally dont believe in multiple timelines, I am of the school of thought that it is impossible to change anything in the future by altering the past, because by changing it u negate your reason for doing it in the first place.

... And they called it a temporal paradox.
Ooh! It makes my head hurt...

[Reply #18 on:]

How can you call it a line anyway if you don't know where it started? It could be a circle as well...

Hmmm, temporal sciences... 

[Reply #19 on:]

Depends on how you percieve time. We perceive it as an fixed line, in that cause must precede effect (and vice versa). Personally I think time is still a straight line, but a flexible one which can be bent back on itself such that one track flows back into its source, which then flows into another track.

Or there's the theory that time is organic, and will automatically "heal" itself when a rupture is formed. According to this theory, if you attempted to go back in time and assassinate Hitler (for example), the circumstances would change such that any change were impossible (i.e. you are reduced to a role as an observer, not a participant). So in TWOF, Fry would not have been able to make the choice to stay in the past anyway.

I second Teral's statement : temporal mechanics are a pain in the wherever    .

Pretty cool plot device however.   

By the way, I just noticed something (which no doubt all of you noticed ages ago  ). The shadows being cast by Nibbler and Fry cannot exist. Fry shut the door behind him on the way in, so the only two sources of light in the room are the cryo-tube (which is opposite Fry and Nibbler) and the window (which is blanked out by the side of the desk, as it's one of those three sided ones). Even if there were a light source behind the desk, only the bottom part of Fry and Nibbler would be visible (due to the back edge of the desk). Thus the shadows cast are impossible. Is this just a case of poetic licence?

[Reply #20 on:]

Yes

[Reply #21 on:]

As I've already noted in the capsule (approval pending). 

[Reply #22 on:]

For more information about the time thingy, see my post in the thread  regarding "plot holes".

Teral and CyberKnight, you will find that the most plausible elements of your theories (which I had not read up until now) are incorporated.

[Reply #23 on:]

The most plausible? They're all plausible, in fact my entire theory reeks of plausibility. But your's sound good too.

[Reply #24 on:]

Thanks. The implausible bit in your theory is that the two timelines are by implication running paralell. If there are a million universes in potentia and only one active at once, then that would split the universe at the seams.

Other than that, you were plausible.

[Reply #25 on:]

What I meant was that the second timeline replace the first, and by doing that eliminates it from history. No parallel timelines. Just one that get rewritten.

A TNG episode once dealt with the possibility of multiple (read that: gazillions) quntum realities, based on a theory by Richard Feynman. The episode was named "Parallels", quite fitting.

[Reply #26 on:]

You can't "overwrite" time. Time itself may not be a constant, but the past is a constant in relation to the present, (translation: whatever happens cannot be undone, only added to).

Therefore, the idea of a timeline per se is not as accurate as a timestream, which can incorporate the loops described in my theory... the interesting part is that the parts of the stream that have already been laid down are frozen... the present is the only liquid part. The loops in this model would be secondary seperate layers of ice over the main layer.

The potential courses of the stream are not affected by the course of the past, but the momentum of the liquid "head".

Nothing is eliminated, but certain  elements of the past cease to matter, due to the layer above them, which incorporates what it needs to make it work from the layer below.

[Reply #27 on:]

 

Originally posted by Teral:
What I meant was that the second timeline replace the first, and by doing that eliminates it from history. No parallel timelines. Just one that get rewritten.

A TNG episode once dealt with the possibility of multiple (read that: gazillions) quntum realities, based on a theory by Richard Feynman. The episode was named "Parallels", quite fitting.

That one was really great, also it gave me a new point of view on life. Think about where you could be hadn't you made a different decision at some point in the past...
But timetravel story usually use different approaches how timelines work, therefore it's impossible to compare these stories...

[Reply #28 on:]

TotalNerduk...in a few words "What the hell are you talking about???"  Thank you for your expansion of the Back to the Future time travel theory.

I wouldn't normally say anything, but you're not suggesting your idea, or saying "My theory is..." you're telling someone else they're wrong about how time works and stating your own theory as fact.  "Time stream"?  <insert derisive bender laugh>

Not even small groups of physicists can agree on how time travel would work, getting nowhere close to making definitive statements like "but the past is a constant in relation to the present, (translation: whatever happens cannot be undone, only added to)."

I'm not trying to be disrespectful or to start a flamewar, but don't make it sound like you're quoting a law of science or somthing.

[Reply #29 on:]

Leave science out of this...

[Reply #30 on:]

<h2><red>ALL YOUR IDIOT THEORIES ARE WRONG, ONLY NATURE'S HARMONIC
SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE IS COMPLETE TRUTH</h2></red>

[Reply #31 on:]

@Chalic: If you're going to mock my theoretical model of time, you could at least point out what you disagree with.

Plus, the definitive statement "but the past is a constant in relation to the present, (translation: whatever happens cannot be undone, only added to)."  happens to be an accepted truth rather than a personal theory.

I will gladly retract this statement if you can conclusively prove that anything I have laid out in my theoretical model is BS, however I do not believe that you can, or you would have already done so.

PS, you ARE disrespectful, whatever you may lay claim to be. You're a disrespectful little shit if you're saying that my thoery is anything like the model of time in BTTF. Go and do some thinking, and remember: I'm smarter than you will ever be!   

[Reply #32 on:]

Here is a quick and acurate example of the coherence of time.  Today is tomorrow's yesterday.  Now, argue about something interesting dammit!

[Reply #33 on:]

The past being immobile is MOST CERTAINLY NOT the "accepted" theory.  THERE IS NO ACCEPTED THEORY!  You're damn right I can't conculsivly prove what you're saying is wrong!  That would be like asking you to conslusively prove that the Andromeda Galaxy does not have a supermassive black hole at it's center.  Do you have a large orbiting x-ray platform that you can use to examine galxies?  I didn't think so, so asking you to disprove it is just as foolish as you asking me to disprove anything you've said about time.  My FRAGGING point, was that YOU have no right to tell anyone else THEY are wrong, because you have no ability to disprove anything THEY say.  Also, check out: http://www.peelified.com/cgi-bin/Futurama/3-000330-2/#t57  if you're interested in seeing where *I* get my information.  Strangely enough, you've fallen silent there.  Wonder why...

P.S.  From the guy who continually says "I'm smarter than you will ever be!", calling me a "disrespectful little shit" is not only hypocrytical, it's laughable!

[Reply #34 on:]

You wouldn't care to elaborate on that 4-day time cube would you Nixorbo? 
You're probably right though, it's very likely all current theories about the specific effects of time travel are wrong, but I think we have some of the mechanics of it worked out pretty well.

I'd like to see how much water your theory holds though.  A broken clock is right two times a day.   

[Reply #35 on:]

Wait . . . you took that link seriously?

::Tries to hold a straight face::
::Fails miserably::

[Reply #36 on:]

 

Originally posted by Teral:
 Janeway: "Temporal mechanics give me a headache."

 

Originally posted by Gocad:
Deanna Troi: Timeline? This is no time to talk about time. We don't have the time!... What was I saying?

Can I join in?

O'Briens: I hate temporal mechanics!

[Reply #37 on:]

 

Originally posted by Chalic:
The past being immobile is MOST CERTAINLY NOT the "accepted" theory.  THERE IS NO ACCEPTED THEORY!  You're damn right I can't conculsivly prove what you're saying is wrong!  That would be like asking you to conslusively prove that the Andromeda Galaxy does not have a supermassive black hole at it's center.  Do you have a large orbiting x-ray platform that you can use to examine galxies?  I didn't think so, so asking you to disprove it is just as foolish as you asking me to disprove anything you've said about time.  My FRAGGING point, was that YOU have no right to tell anyone else THEY are wrong, because you have no ability to disprove anything THEY say.  Also, check out: http://www.peelified.com/cgi-bin/Futurama/3-000330-2/#t57  if you're interested in seeing where *I* get my information.  Strangely enough, you've fallen silent there.  Wonder why...

P.S.  From the guy who continually says "I'm smarter than you will ever be!", calling me a "disrespectful little shit" is not only hypocrytical, it's laughable!

Looks like your problem is that you took me seriously when you were not meant to, and vice versa.

Go and have a cold beer, then visit a prostitute. That'll sort your mind out.

[Reply #38 on:]

"Wait . . . you took that link seriously?

::Tries to hold a straight face::
::Fails miserably::"

No Nix, I was just being facetious...but if you're going to laugh at me that easily, then enjoy yourself. 

To ToTaLneRdUk:

It's funny, but you seem to go from being extremely serious, to being light-hearted and witty in the blink of an eye. 

Anyone interested in seeing nerdy frothing at the mouth at me can go here:  http://www.peelified.com/cgi-bin/Futurama/3-000330-2/#t57

Check out the last post by myself and nerduk, and you'll see what I mean.

[Reply #39 on:]

Chalic, I'm never 100% serious, however, sometimes I speak the complete truth.