DS Forums

 
 

Rose Tyler in 2012


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-05-2005, 00:58
Polly_Perkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,939

Maybe a Who fan can help me out,

Rose Tyler would be 26 in 2012, if she had returned to Earth before 2012 would she be able to bump into her 26 year old self in tonights episode if they had gone back to London 2012?

Hope that makes sense.
Polly_Perkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 01-05-2005, 01:10
Joyitude
 
Posts: n/a
No she wouldn't. In 2005 Rose left Earth in the Tardis and would not be on Earth in 2012. But of she went back in time to, say, 1992, she could see herself.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 01:15
gregmantis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 1,043
Originally Posted by cifpower
No she wouldn't. In 2005 Rose left Earth in the Tardis and would not be on Earth in 2012. But of she went back in time to, say, 1992, she could see herself.
How do we know that she didn't go back to Earth a minute or so after her mother walked off last week, after having been journeying around with the Doctor for a bit? The only way she won't exist in 2012 is if a) she never returns, b) she returns after 2012. or c) she returns before 2012 but dies at some point before it.
gregmantis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 01:18
Polly_Perkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,939
Ok so another thing , in theory then if the Dalek had killed Rose, the Doctor could of get in the TARDIS and gone back to the 'start' of that episode and killed the Dalek.
Polly_Perkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 01:19
Polly_Perkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,939
Originally Posted by gregmantis
How do we know that she didn't go back to Earth a minute or so after her mother walked off last week, after having been journeying around with the Doctor for a bit? The only way she won't exist in 2012 is if a) she never returns, b) she returns after 2012. or c) she returns before 2012 but dies at some point before it.
But is that what happened with Tegan, the Doctor dropped her back to earth at the exactly the same point in time he met her so she hadnt in theory been gone at all.
Polly_Perkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 01:22
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
Originally Posted by Polly_Perkins
Ok so another thing , in theory then if the Dalek had killed Rose, the Doctor could of get in the TARDIS and gone back to the 'start' of that episode and killed the Dalek.
That would create a very annoying paradox.

The Dalek kills Rose, so the Doctor goes back to kill the Dalek.
Rose isn't killed, so everything is fine. But it's not
If Rose wasn't killed, the Doctor doesn't have a need to go back in time, so he doesn't kill the Dalek, so it kills Rose, so he goes back and so forth.
Mark. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 01:32
Polly_Perkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,939
Why would they be stuck in that loop? The Doctor would be the only one with the true memory of what happened so would know killing the Dalek early on would prevent the death of Rose. So he could go back in time, kill the Dalek. The future changes.
Polly_Perkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 01:40
Anthony Haines
 
Posts: n/a
It depends how you look at time travel. Actually, in dundee_mark's case, the Doctor that would go back in time to kill the dalek couldn't exist.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 01:42
Polly_Perkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,939
So the Doctor cant alter the future by going back in time?
Polly_Perkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 01:55
Anthony Haines
 
Posts: n/a
Not when it involves himself.

But has the Doctor actually altered the past or the future deliberately?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 02:00
Polly_Perkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,939
Mmmm ok. So in the film the Daleks invade Earth in 2150 AD, yet in 2012 the last Dalek is supposedly killed.

So if that were the case would that mean that 2150 doesnt happen?
Polly_Perkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 02:15
stuart62
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dundee
Posts: 7,475
Originally Posted by Polly_Perkins
Mmmm ok. So in the film the Daleks invade Earth in 2150 AD, yet in 2012 the last Dalek is supposedly killed.

So if that were the case would that mean that 2150 doesnt happen?
The film has nothing to do with the TV series. The Daleks have been killed finally on several occasions but time travel is a funny old thing. The never-ending loop described above is tied up with the Blinovitch Limitation Effect and Time Lords cannot do this (unless they're Paul McGann! )
stuart62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 10:45
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,514
Originally Posted by Polly_Perkins
Mmmm ok. So in the film the Daleks invade Earth in 2150 AD, yet in 2012 the last Dalek is supposedly killed.

So if that were the case would that mean that 2150 doesnt happen?
The Peter Cushing films are not considered to be part of Doctor Who "canon".
James2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 11:16
Dazzy D
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Rotherham, South Yorkshire
Posts: 814
But didn't the Dalek that was captured in last nights episode slip through time and end up on Earth as part of the Time War ?
So in effect 2150 did happen ??

(Totally confused )
Dazzy D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 11:20
stuart62
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dundee
Posts: 7,475
Originally Posted by Dazzy D
But didn't the Dalek that was captured in last nights episode slip through time and end up on Earth as part of the Time War ?
So in effect 2150 did happen ??

(Totally confused )
No - the events in the film were a replay of the TV story The Dalek Invasion of Earth (which took place in 2164). Although this happens in our future, it takes place in the Daleks' past. Simple!
stuart62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 11:21
Polly_Perkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,939
So are none of the Daleks on Earth episode set on Earth beyond 2012?
Polly_Perkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 11:24
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
Originally Posted by Anthony Haines
It depends how you look at time travel. Actually, in dundee_mark's case, the Doctor that would go back in time to kill the dalek couldn't exist.
Why couldn't the Doctor exist?
Mark. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 11:33
Ally-Ayr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: in ma hoose
Posts: 4,211
Originally Posted by dundee_mark
That would create a very annoying paradox.

The Dalek kills Rose, so the Doctor goes back to kill the Dalek.
Rose isn't killed, so everything is fine. But it's not
If Rose wasn't killed, the Doctor doesn't have a need to go back in time, so he doesn't kill the Dalek, so it kills Rose, so he goes back and so forth
.

*****brain explodes*****
Ally-Ayr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 11:45
Elstoon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 131
Originally Posted by dundee_mark
That would create a very annoying paradox.

The Dalek kills Rose, so the Doctor goes back to kill the Dalek.
Rose isn't killed, so everything is fine. But it's not
If Rose wasn't killed, the Doctor doesn't have a need to go back in time, so he doesn't kill the Dalek, so it kills Rose, so he goes back and so forth.
Until the Dalek itself decides not to kill Rose - which is what happened in the episode. That would break the loop and resolve the paradox.

Ha - for all we know The Doctor and Rose met the Dalek thousands of times trying out different tactics until it decided not to kill Rose.

Causality Paradoxes suck (A-B-C-A). Star Trek uses them all the time, and they never really make sense.

Thankfully, Dr Who is usually far cleverer than that.

Is it not just a rule that The Doctor is not supposed to cross his own timeline, i think he can, its just forbidden by the Timelords. Seen on screen in The Three Doctors etc.
Elstoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 11:47
Lemonade
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pinch Me, I'm Dreaming....
Posts: 4,783
I'm really getting a headache, while reading all these! .
Lemonade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 11:47
stuart62
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dundee
Posts: 7,475
I think some of you are confusing Doctor Who with Groundhog Day!
stuart62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 11:49
tv watcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London SE4
Posts: 685
guy's guy's please!

time traval goe's both back and forwards as well as (sideway's)
havent you seen passed dr who episodes come to that back to the future part 2?
changing the past doe's not mean changing the future but mainly creating an alternate one/ time lines??

well i hope that helps
tv watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 11:55
Elstoon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 131
Erm Tv Watcher, thats not right.

The actions in BTTF2 do change the timeline, thats the whole point - they are trying to correct problems that they themselves created by changing the past.
Elstoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 11:56
tv watcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London SE4
Posts: 685
come to think of ot sliders is also a good example that used to be on sky one/ bbc2 a good few years back
tv watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2005, 12:16
anagoge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Kirkby, Liverpool
Posts: 1,107
Time travel: Don't even try to understand it.
anagoge is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:59.