Originally Posted by anagoge:
“Time travel: Don't even try to understand it.”
“Time travel: Don't even try to understand it.”
I know, it's all too much!
Look what it did to Donnie Darko!
Rose Tyler in 2012
2 of 5
Elston your right in that!!
maybe back to the future was off topic but as an example of how alternate universes are created as the doc explains to marty on the blackboard how changing the past
only creates a new time line or as he say's screws off into another tangernt well someting like that.
but mutiverses or sideway's time traval are mentioned on the episode battlefield of dr who
maybe back to the future was off topic but as an example of how alternate universes are created as the doc explains to marty on the blackboard how changing the past
only creates a new time line or as he say's screws off into another tangernt well someting like that.
but mutiverses or sideway's time traval are mentioned on the episode battlefield of dr who
As a new viewer, these sorts of things are irritating and confusing me!
Why doesn't the course of history change every time they go back or forward in time? I can't get my head round it.
Why doesn't the course of history change every time they go back or forward in time? I can't get my head round it.
Originally Posted by AcerBen:
“As a new viewer, these sorts of things are irritating and confusing me!
Why doesn't the course of history change every time they go back or forward in time? I can't get my head round it.”
“As a new viewer, these sorts of things are irritating and confusing me!
Why doesn't the course of history change every time they go back or forward in time? I can't get my head round it.”
Well id does really. But who (sorry, no pun intended) is to say that the Doctor and Rose weren't originally part of the events they're involved in?
Originally Posted by AcerBen:
“As a new viewer, these sorts of things are irritating and confusing me!
Why doesn't the course of history change every time they go back or forward in time? I can't get my head round it.”
“As a new viewer, these sorts of things are irritating and confusing me!
Why doesn't the course of history change every time they go back or forward in time? I can't get my head round it.”
It does.....but from the viewer point of view this has always been the 'history'....you don't know it's changed, because you're in the 'present', and the alternate outcomes never happened.
I think I've just confused myself, I've not put that very well, maybe someone here with a better grasp of English could explain what I mean lol
Originally Posted by AcerBen:
“As a new viewer, these sorts of things are irritating and confusing me!
Why doesn't the course of history change every time they go back or forward in time? I can't get my head round it.”
“As a new viewer, these sorts of things are irritating and confusing me!
Why doesn't the course of history change every time they go back or forward in time? I can't get my head round it.”
There's also the theory about many timelines running parallel to one another.
As an example, we know WW2 happened, and our present day reflects this.
But whose to say that someone hasn't gone back in time from many years into the future, and stopped WW2? This changes the course of history dramatically, but not for us - what happens is another time line goes off on a tangent, doing its own thing.
That's one of the theories surrounding the Doctor - he's on a different timeline from his own.
This also contradicts the paradox I described a few posts back.
Originally Posted by Ally-Ayr:
“It does.....but from the viewer point of view this has always been the 'history'....you don't know it's changed, because you're in the 'present', and the alternate outcomes never happened.
I think I've just confused myself, I've not put that very well, maybe someone here with a better grasp of English could explain what I mean lol”
“It does.....but from the viewer point of view this has always been the 'history'....you don't know it's changed, because you're in the 'present', and the alternate outcomes never happened.
I think I've just confused myself, I've not put that very well, maybe someone here with a better grasp of English could explain what I mean lol”
Thats exactly it, history has only changed from the point of view of the Time Traveller. (or us, the watcher).
As far as everyone else is concerned the new timeline is what has happened.
TV Watcher you are right about Time Travel into different universes, but each universe only has one timeline, change something in that universe and the timeline in that universe is changed.
Or something!
Originally Posted by dundee_mark:
“There's also the theory about many timelines running parallel to one another.
As an example, we know WW2 happened, and our present day reflects this.
But whose to say that someone hasn't gone back in time from many years into the future, and stopped WW2? This changes the course of history dramatically, but not for us - what happens is another time line goes off on a tangent, doing its own thing.
That's one of the theories surrounding the Doctor - he's on a different timeline from his own.
This also contradicts the paradox I described a few posts back.”
“There's also the theory about many timelines running parallel to one another.
As an example, we know WW2 happened, and our present day reflects this.
But whose to say that someone hasn't gone back in time from many years into the future, and stopped WW2? This changes the course of history dramatically, but not for us - what happens is another time line goes off on a tangent, doing its own thing.
That's one of the theories surrounding the Doctor - he's on a different timeline from his own.
This also contradicts the paradox I described a few posts back.”
So why should the Doctor bother going back in time at all ?
Originally Posted by dundee_mark:
“
That's one of the theories surrounding the Doctor - he's on a different timeline from his own.
”
“
That's one of the theories surrounding the Doctor - he's on a different timeline from his own.
”
I may be wrong, but the Doctor has always been concerned about "correcting the timeline", which implies there is one timeline, but for some reason it is not as it should be.
The Timelords are aware of what the timeline should be like and are able to tell when it is not right. So when he says different timeline he doesn't mean a seperate one, but the timeline is different to what it should be.
Originally Posted by AcerBen:
“So why should the Doctor bother going back in time at all ?”
“So why should the Doctor bother going back in time at all ?”
Good point.
Perhaps it's because nobody knows about "alternative timelines" - they just assume that there is one timeline, that changes if the past changes.
@Elstoon - The Doctor does go on about "THE timeline", but that's because he only knows of one - his.
This is just a theory, BTW - it doesn't mean its true!!!!!
Originally Posted by Elstoon:
“I may be wrong, but the Doctor has always been concerned about "correcting the timeline", which implies there is one timeline, but for some reason it is not as it should be.
The Timelords are aware of what the timeline should be like and are able to tell when it is not right. So when he says different timeline he doesn't mean a seperate one, but the timeline is different to what it should be.”
“I may be wrong, but the Doctor has always been concerned about "correcting the timeline", which implies there is one timeline, but for some reason it is not as it should be.
The Timelords are aware of what the timeline should be like and are able to tell when it is not right. So when he says different timeline he doesn't mean a seperate one, but the timeline is different to what it should be.”
maybe the 'correcting the time line' is from his point of view...to get him back to his origonal time line which has been lost due to his constant 'footering-about' with history
Originally Posted by Elstoon:
“Thats exactly it, history has only changed from the point of view of the Time Traveller. (or us, the watcher).
As far as everyone else is concerned the new timeline is what has happened.
TV Watcher you are right about Time Travel into different universes, but each universe only has one timeline, change something in that universe and the timeline in that universe is changed.
Or something!”
“Thats exactly it, history has only changed from the point of view of the Time Traveller. (or us, the watcher).
As far as everyone else is concerned the new timeline is what has happened.
TV Watcher you are right about Time Travel into different universes, but each universe only has one timeline, change something in that universe and the timeline in that universe is changed.
Or something!
”
Mmmmm this seperate timeline, paralel universe thing doesnt make sense to little old me. That would mean there are millions of paralel universes for every decision we make or dont make. If I go out my front door, I can walk to the station, I can take 20 routes, each route can have a different consequence, on one route I might be mugged, another run over etc etc. Or perhaps I dont walk at all and take my car or perhaps I order a taxi. All would have in theory different outcomes. Which is basically fate.
Surely Doctor Who is on a real timetime line, the one in which he and Rose exist. so like the earth ended in the year 30 trillion or whatever it was, so you are saying that might not have happened, so in theory the Rose and the Doctor might not even exist apart from in some kind of timeline vacumn.
Originally Posted by Polly_Perkins:
“Mmmmm this seperate timeline, paralel universe thing doesnt make sense to little old me. That would mean there are millions of paralel universes for every decision we make or dont make. If I go out my front door, I can walk to the station, I can take 20 routes, each route can have a different consequence, on one route I might be mugged, another run over etc etc. Or perhaps I dont walk at all and take my car or perhaps I order a taxi. All would have in theory different outcomes. Which is basically fate.
Surely Doctor Who is on a real timetime line, the one in which he and Rose exist. so like the earth ended in the year 30 trillion or whatever it was, so you are saying that might not have happened, so in theory the Rose and the Doctor might not even exist apart from in some kind of timeline vacumn.”
“Mmmmm this seperate timeline, paralel universe thing doesnt make sense to little old me. That would mean there are millions of paralel universes for every decision we make or dont make. If I go out my front door, I can walk to the station, I can take 20 routes, each route can have a different consequence, on one route I might be mugged, another run over etc etc. Or perhaps I dont walk at all and take my car or perhaps I order a taxi. All would have in theory different outcomes. Which is basically fate.
Surely Doctor Who is on a real timetime line, the one in which he and Rose exist. so like the earth ended in the year 30 trillion or whatever it was, so you are saying that might not have happened, so in theory the Rose and the Doctor might not even exist apart from in some kind of timeline vacumn.”
That's basically the 'multiverse' view yes, every 'choice' creates the current reality, because time and space are relative to each other, the Tardis can 'leap' between 'realitys' at any point in there timeline.....
TARDIS handbook, Pg7, Chapter 3
I really should have sobered up by now
Last edited by Ally-Ayr : 01-05-2005 at 13:39
So in one universe the doctor and Rose are travelling, Rose was missing for a year until she popped back.
But if the Doctor drops Rose back at the same point in time she left, that means she wasnt missing which is another timeline.
Mmmm
So that is similar to Tegan who was dropped off at the point in time she met the Doctor, so it could be argued none of those things happened to her but they did if you consider if all took place on various lines in time.
Make sense now in some strange way.
But if the Doctor drops Rose back at the same point in time she left, that means she wasnt missing which is another timeline.
Mmmm
So that is similar to Tegan who was dropped off at the point in time she met the Doctor, so it could be argued none of those things happened to her but they did if you consider if all took place on various lines in time.
Make sense now in some strange way.
Time Travel is fantasy- it is not a possibility. Time travel isn't possibile as it throws up too many paradoxical arguements.
Anyway, I still love Dr Who LOL
Anyway, I still love Dr Who LOL
It could be possible in theory using the "when history changes a new timeline is created stemming off the original timeline". I doubt it though, surely someone would have came back in time from the future by now. Maybe they have and they were just committed to a mental institution for trying to tell people.
Originally Posted by Polly_Perkins:
“So are none of the Daleks on Earth episode set on Earth beyond 2012?”
“So are none of the Daleks on Earth episode set on Earth beyond 2012?”
that last Dalek had fallen back through time, so although the docgor was telling it that it was the last, i don't think that it was stricktly true in 2012.
Originally Posted by aidious:
“Time Travel is fantasy- it is not a possibility. Time travel isn't possibile as it throws up too many paradoxical arguements.
Anyway, I still love Dr Who LOL”
“Time Travel is fantasy- it is not a possibility. Time travel isn't possibile as it throws up too many paradoxical arguements.
Anyway, I still love Dr Who LOL”
They used to say the same about flight and space travel!
Originally Posted by Drathro:
“that last Dalek had fallen back through time, so although the docgor was telling it that it was the last, i don't think that it was stricktly true in 2012.”
“that last Dalek had fallen back through time, so although the docgor was telling it that it was the last, i don't think that it was stricktly true in 2012.”
Ah but would the Time War have eradicated them from the whole of time? So that Dalek really was the last one left in all time and space.
I remember in Red Dwarf, a similar paradox occurs.
At the end of one series, the crew's future selves kill the present crew.
At the beginning of the next series, the crew are alive and it's explained that when the future crew killed the present crew, the crew in the future would not exist, so then they wouldn't be able to travel back in time to kill their past selves.
At the end of one series, the crew's future selves kill the present crew.
At the beginning of the next series, the crew are alive and it's explained that when the future crew killed the present crew, the crew in the future would not exist, so then they wouldn't be able to travel back in time to kill their past selves.
Originally Posted by Anthony Haines:
“I remember in Red Dwarf, a similar paradox occurs.
At the end of one series, the crew's future selves kill the present crew.
At the beginning of the next series, the crew are alive and it's explained that when the future crew killed the present crew, the crew in the future would not exist, so then they wouldn't be able to travel back in time to kill their past selves.”
“I remember in Red Dwarf, a similar paradox occurs.
At the end of one series, the crew's future selves kill the present crew.
At the beginning of the next series, the crew are alive and it's explained that when the future crew killed the present crew, the crew in the future would not exist, so then they wouldn't be able to travel back in time to kill their past selves.”
As I say - it's not as simple as that.
I don't think, though, Red Dwarf is meant to be analysed in such detail!!!!!!
Originally Posted by dundee_mark:
“As I say - it's not as simple as that.
I don't think, though, Red Dwarf is meant to be analysed in such detail!!!!!!”
“As I say - it's not as simple as that.
I don't think, though, Red Dwarf is meant to be analysed in such detail!!!!!!”
And 'Who' is lol
.
Originally Posted by Ally-Ayr:
“And 'Who' is lol
.”
“And 'Who' is lol
.”
Erm, erm......
*looks for response*
Erm......Red Dwarf is a comedy!!!!!!!
2 of 5
