Re: Journeyman Oct 15 Spoilers
tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us
James Gassaway wrote:
> Robin Miller wrote:
> > "Audie Murphy's Ghost" <takebac...@2008.com> wrote in message
> > news:191020070127490504%takebac...@2008.com...
> >> In article <wtWRi.169$ph5...@newsfe06.lga>, Robin Miller
> >> <Not_My@Real_Adddress.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Audie Murphy's Ghost" <takebac...@2008.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:181020072323483351%takebac...@2008.com...
> >>>> In article <qf0gh3dr3msuorv88...@4ax.com>, David
> >>>> Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:37:09 -0400, Audie Murphy's Ghost
> >>>>> <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article <OxRRi.98$ph5...@newsfe06.lga>, Robin Miller
> >>>>>> <Not_My@Real_Adddress.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The one thing that doesn't really make any sense to me is the
> >>>>>>> lack of
> >>>>>>> explanation of where Livia is coming from, in a physical sense.
> >>>>>>> She's
> >>>>>>> dead
> >>>>>>> in Dan's timeline. Is she traveling from an alternate current
> >>>>>>> time line in
> >>>>>>> which she didn't die?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why do you say that? She quantum-leaped off the plane in flight
> >>>>>> before
> >>>>>> it crashed. There's no alternate timeline, at least where she's
> >>>>>> concerned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He's using "timeline" to mean " location in time", I think.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh. Thanks, David.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I/she did mean alternate timeline, but you all think
> >>> that's wrong,
> >>> and that Livia has simply been "traveling" continuously since she
> >>> jumped off
> >>> the plane and just has not returned to her original (and Dan's)
> >>> timeline. OK, I can accept that, I guess. The reason I asked about
> >>> Livia coming from
> >>> an alternate timeline is because we know there are alternate
> >>> timelines within the show. In fact, that's the whole purpose of the
> >>> traveling, to change the timeline. Dan is even aware of the change
> >>> in the timeline. But viewers have never seen more than one timeline
> >>> (i.e., Dan's timeline) in existence at the same time. Livia coming
> >>> from an alternate timeline presupposes the coexistence of multiple
> >>> timelines
> >>
> >> There's no reason to assume that Livia is from an alternate timeline,
> >> though. We now know she was a leaper before she met Dan, that she
> >> didn't leap while she knew Dan, and that she escaped an air crash by
> >> leaping, which she has been doing ever since, and without having
> >> gotten in touch with Dan before the events of this series. We don't
> >> know if her escape from the crash was voluntary, or if she was saved
> >> somehow. If she was supposed to have died in the crash, then keeping
> >> her survival a secret actually tends to preserve the timeline, not
> >> change it.
> >
> >
> > I agree that the "Livia from an alternate timeline" idea probably
> > introduces unnecessary complications, and isn't supported by what
> > we've seen so far. I was thinking in those terms because she seems to
> > know nothing of Dan's life since the plane crash. I assumed that
> > meant that she wasn't from Dan's timeline. But the idea that she's
> > been traveling constantly since the crash might explain everything.
> > Other than why she's traveling constantly, if what happens to Dan is
> > the "normal" traveler's experience, coming back to his own present
> > time after each jump.
> Or she could just be in hiding when she's "back" in 2007/8. Consider this
> (relatively simple I think) possibility. Shortly before the plane crashes,
> she Journeys. While she's in the past the plane crashes. She returns and
> finds herself on a shoreline and sees the search and rescue operations going
> over where her flight went down. Realizing there's no way she can explain
> her survival to the authorities and/or afraid that being found would blow
> her secret, she runs and goes underground. She wouldn't know what had
> happened to Dan or any of her former friends because trying to get in touch
> with them or getting close enough to learn that kind of info would risk
> being discovered.
>
> Personally, I don't think she's "staying" in the past. Its possible but the
> fact that she's left Dan in the middle of conversations to me argues against
> it.
If Dan were to cling to Livia, would he be able to stop her from
traveling at all,
or travel with her?
Tim Bruening
KalElFan wrote:
> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.218651b59...@news.individual.net...
>
> > 21 Oct 2007 22:45:12 -0400 from William December Starr
> > <wds...@panix.com>:
> >
> >> Everybody seems to be assuming -- as I did, until I thought about it
> >> some more -- that Elliot Langley was calling Dan from 2007. But
> >> it's possible that it was just the 1998 (or whenever it was) version
> >> of Langley that was calling the 1998 version of Dan for some
> >> reason, isn't it?
> >
> > It never for a moment crossed my mind that the telephone call was
> > leaping nine years. I wonder why everyone is assuming that -- was
> > there something I didn't notice that led in that direction?
> >
> > My reaction was: "Whoa! He called the guy in 2007, but now it turns
> > out the guy knew him nine years earlier. What's the connection?"
>
> I looked at the past scene again, and Langley specifically asks "Dan
> Vasser?" after Dan answers his old cell phone. Langley's tone seems
> to be that he doesn't know Dan well, but it could have been his follow-
> up second call to him. The first call in the present ended with Langley
> saying he would check his schedule after Dan requested a meeting
> with him. In that first conversation, Langley specifically mentioned
> Dan's father by name -- Frank -- and said they went back a long way.
> He said he *_met_* Frank years ago. Langley worked at NASA at the
> time.
>
> Once Dan realizes that he's getting a call back in the late 90s rather
> than 2007, he conveys that with "Wait a minute... I just talked to you
> back in..." before he realizes how puzzling it is and stops talking. Then
> Langley says "I'm having trouble hearing you. I'll call you back later."
> and hangs up.
>
> Looking at it again and specifically the "call you back later..." dialogue,
> it does seem very plausible that Langley has a Premium Cell Phone
> Service in 2007. :-) It's like he thought he was calling Dan in 2007,
> but when his call got through and Dan seemed to be in the past, he
> (Langley) realized he had to break off the call.
>
> So those assuming Langley called from 2007 may well be correct.
> It's counter-intuitive (contrived, too convenient) as a freak or natural
> phenomenon in a hard SF time travel story, though Frequency (a
> good movie) and other stories have used it. But again it wouldn't
> necessarily be a freak or natural phenomenon here. Not everyone
> is calling Dan in the past from 2007, so far just Elliot Langley the
> physicist from Livermore labs. Here's their real-world site:
>
> http://www.llnl.gov/
>
> Its full title is Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and it's
> 48 miles East of San Francisco. Here's a blurb from their "About
> LLNL" page:
>
> "... As a national security laboratory, LLNL is responsible for
> ensuring that the nation’s nuclear weapons remain safe,
> secure, and reliable through application of advances in
> science and engineering. With its special capabilities, the
> Laboratory also meets other pressing national security needs,
> which include countering the proliferation of weapons of mass
> destruction and strengthening homeland security against the
> terrorist use of such weapons.
>
> "Our breakthrough advances are made possible by an
> extraordinary technical staff and investments in research
> facilities that provide LLNL wide ranging capabilities. The
> Laboratory is an international leader in many areas of
> science and technology central to our national security
> mission..."
>
> Time travel would definitely be a national security issue in this
> SF series. :-) So it looks like they've built in another interesting,
> very good piece of the puzzle with this new character. I doubt
> he's running the operation or even knows who is, but he may
> be part of the present-day (2007) investigation into what's going
> on.
If Livermore can develop a controllable time machine, it can send agents back
to 2001 to stop the 9/11 attacks!!!! Go, Livermore, go!
Tim Bruening
Rob Jensen wrote:
> The implication is that not only is Langely familiar with the
> JourneyMEN situation (note the plural, and I mean it in the
> non-gender-specific sense, since Livia is clearly also a Journeyman),
> they're also working on and so aware of the problem in 2007 that they
> can call by modern cellphone into the past, which, of course, suggests
> something having to do with cellphone transmission through tachyons or
> some other Trekspeak.
I am hopeful that Langely can develop for Dan a device to enable him to postpone
his time jumps when the timing is inconvenient, so that Dan's marriage would no
longer be in danger.
Rob Jensen
BTW, FTR, my mother's copy of LLNL's Newsline (the weekly lab
newspaper -- lifetime subscription for her is a perk of my late dad's
retirement) just came in the mail today. It's still under DOE
jurisdiction (30th Year of DOE's existence) and the cover feature is
antineutrinos and their contribution to nonproliferation studies (due
to their nature, antineutrinos can be detected from great distances
and the theory is that their presence will aid in the detection of
nuclear activity from a distance -- the analogy I would use from the
article is something akin to the night-vision goggles of nuclear
activity.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
Tim Bruening
Rob Jensen wrote:
Since neutrinos can go through light years of lead without slowing down, can I
assume that the same is true of antineutrinos? If so, how in the world can you
detect them?
Rob Jensen
Answer to your first question: apparently yes. Second question: if
I understand the article correctly (and I flunked physics in high
school -- my teacher even made a point to let me withdraw before the
affects-your-transcript deadline), at present, antineutrinos are
uniquely a byproduct of nuclear activity.
Tim Bruening
Rob Jensen wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:47:20 -0700, Tim Bruening
> <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
> >> BTW, FTR, my mother's copy of LLNL's Newsline (the weekly lab
> >> newspaper -- lifetime subscription for her is a perk of my late dad's
> >> retirement) just came in the mail today. It's still under DOE
> >> jurisdiction (30th Year of DOE's existence) and the cover feature is
> >> antineutrinos and their contribution to nonproliferation studies (due
> >> to their nature, antineutrinos can be detected from great distances
> >> and the theory is that their presence will aid in the detection of
> >> nuclear activity from a distance -- the analogy I would use from the
> >> article is something akin to the night-vision goggles of nuclear
> >> activity.
> >
> >Since neutrinos can go through light years of lead without slowing down, can I
> >assume that the same is true of antineutrinos? If so, how in the world can you
> >detect them?
>
> Answer to your first question: apparently yes. Second question: if
> I understand the article correctly (and I flunked physics in high
> school -- my teacher even made a point to let me withdraw before the
> affects-your-transcript deadline), at present, antineutrinos are
> uniquely a byproduct of nuclear activity.
That doesn't answer my question of how to detect anti-neutrinos.
Rob Jensen
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
I flunked physics. All I can say is that what I understand of the
article is that the very fact that they move really fast and really
fast through lead, they're detectable from a distance and so when
they're detected in whatever device they're coming up with, it
indicates that the area that the detectorthingie detects them in is a
likely possibility of nuclear activity.
Tim Bruening
Rob Jensen wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:47:20 -0700, Tim Bruening
> <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
> >> BTW, FTR, my mother's copy of LLNL's Newsline (the weekly lab
> >> newspaper -- lifetime subscription for her is a perk of my late dad's
> >> retirement) just came in the mail today. It's still under DOE
> >> jurisdiction (30th Year of DOE's existence) and the cover feature is
> >> antineutrinos and their contribution to nonproliferation studies (due
> >> to their nature, antineutrinos can be detected from great distances
> >> and the theory is that their presence will aid in the detection of
> >> nuclear activity from a distance -- the analogy I would use from the
> >> article is something akin to the night-vision goggles of nuclear
> >> activity.
> >
> >Since neutrinos can go through light years of lead without slowing down, can I
> >assume that the same is true of antineutrinos? If so, how in the world can you
> >detect them?
>
> Answer to your first question: apparently yes. Second question: if
> I understand the article correctly (and I flunked physics in high
> school -- my teacher even made a point to let me withdraw before the
> affects-your-transcript deadline), at present, antineutrinos are
> uniquely a byproduct of nuclear activity.
What happens when an anti-neutrino hits a neutrino?
Rob Jensen
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
Peace breaks out?
Tim Bruening
Rob Jensen wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:47:20 -0700, Tim Bruening
> <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
> >> BTW, FTR, my mother's copy of LLNL's Newsline (the weekly lab
> >> newspaper -- lifetime subscription for her is a perk of my late dad's
> >> retirement) just came in the mail today. It's still under DOE
> >> jurisdiction (30th Year of DOE's existence) and the cover feature is
> >> antineutrinos and their contribution to nonproliferation studies (due
> >> to their nature, antineutrinos can be detected from great distances
> >> and the theory is that their presence will aid in the detection of
> >> nuclear activity from a distance -- the analogy I would use from the
> >> article is something akin to the night-vision goggles of nuclear
> >> activity.
> >
> >Since neutrinos can go through light years of lead without slowing down, can I
> >assume that the same is true of antineutrinos? If so, how in the world can you
> >detect them?
>
> Answer to your first question: apparently yes. Second question: if
> I understand the article correctly (and I flunked physics in high
> school -- my teacher even made a point to let me withdraw before the
> affects-your-transcript deadline), at present, antineutrinos are
> uniquely a byproduct of nuclear activity.
What happens when an anti-neutrino hits a neutrino?
Rob Jensen
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
The neutrino police file it as a domestic dispute?
Pelerin Galimatias
tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us says...
The mass? is converted into 2 photons.
Tim Bruening
Rob Jensen
Something tells me that it's the Livermore of Over There that
developed a controllable-ish time machine. William Bell used it to
save Over There's twin towers, but the area around where he landed in
Central Park had to be encased in amber.
-- Rob, from Livermore -- adds, "Oh, look! It's a Zombie Thread!"
TB
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 02:57:46 -0700, Tim Bruening
>
>
>
> <tsbru...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
> >KalElFan wrote:
>
> >>news:MPG.218651b59...@news.individual.net...
>
> >> > 21 Oct 2007 22:45:12 -0400 from William December Starr
Why?
Rob Jensen
You resurrected a three-year-old thread about a show that's been
cancelled for almost that long. By definition, you've created a
zombie thread.
-- Rob
TB
I was asking why the area around where the alternate William Bell
landed had to be encased in amber, not why you were saying "Look, its
a Zombie Thread!".
Rob Jensen
At risk of extending the unlife of this Zombie Thread for even longer
than too long, Over There's Amber sites are sites where the the fabric
of reality and the separation between universes is so thin that it
presents imminent danger to Over There. Time Travel presents the same
risk to the fabric of the universes that travel between universes
does.
-- Rob
Tim Bruening
Rob Jensen wrote:
Why?