When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a week, they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't need to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses and twoses too.
--
Mr Maff
So she hasn't actually spent 36 years there then, but only 5 years? She sure
aged a lot in that time. In fact that whole week only went by in 5 minutes
so maybe she only spent 7 days there in the end. The question then is if she
doesn't need to eat in a whole week then why does she age at a different
rate.
>
> --
> Mr Maff
It's a family show and kids aren't all stupid.
The problem isn't just with science which plainly wrong, it's with lazy
writers that can't write stories that make sense and treat their readers
like idiots.
How can Amy not need food on the basis that time for her has been sped up?
Wouldn't her digestion be sped up to and the virus the computer thinks she's
is carrying?
If instead she's in multiple time streams and able to experience everything
simultaneously then why has she aged and why don't all the multiple Amys
join back together in the end?
Why does the computer think she's carrying the virus in the first place?
Aren't the handbots supposed to be able to detect if it's there or not?
If she has got this virus and is a carrier then why doesn't she infect the
Doctor when she goes back into the TARDIS. The same goes for Rory infecting
the Doctor too?
Well, really the problem is that sad fanboys are so sure of their own
arrogant imagined superiority that they will desperately cling to
straws to find a way to complain. Your average child is indeed clever
enough to make sense of this story.
> How can Amy not need food on the basis that time for her has been sped up?
> Wouldn't her digestion be sped up to and the virus the computer thinks she's
> is carrying?
>
If you actually listen to the episode, no one ever says that her time
has been sped up, just that it's on a "different track" from theirs.
If you do not make the unwarranted assumption that her time is sped
up, then there's no reason to ask why her digestion isn't sped up.
In fact, given that the Doctor concludes that she is undergoing time
compression *specifically because she identifies that she hasn't
needed to eat for a week*, it is clear that her biological processes
are neither being sped up nor slowed down, but are "compressed", this
being the word the show used.
The narrative does not halt to give us a dump of exposition about what
that means, because there's no need; anyone who pays even cursory
attention can sort it out: *without* speeding up or slowing down her
body processes, her *experience* of living has been stretched out so
that she can have an entire lifetime of experiences within the span of
a single day. It bears some similarities to living in accelerated
time, but is emphatically not the same.
> If instead she's in multiple time streams and able to experience everything
> simultaneously then why has she aged and why don't all the multiple Amys
> join back together in the end?
>
These are the only choices, then?
> Why does the computer think she's carrying the virus in the first place?
> Aren't the handbots supposed to be able to detect if it's there or not?
>
> If she has got this virus and is a carrier then why doesn't she infect the
> Doctor when she goes back into the TARDIS. The same goes for Rory infecting
> the Doctor too?
>
I don't recall the computer ever doing anything to indicate that it
thought she was carrying the virus. I don't recall anything that
supposes the computer would care one way or the other. It's programmed
not to let anyone out once they've come in. Why would the handbots be
designed to detect the presence of a virus when the entire purpose of
the facility is that it would only ever be entered by people with the
virus.
>
> It's a TV show. Yes. For kids? Mostly. It's actually aimed at the entire
> family. Why's it not meant to make sense?
It makes perfect sense. If you examine ANYTHING at a small enough scale,
it will not make sense.
>
>> Enjoy the show for what it is. It's not the word of god.
>
> I don't recall anyone suggesting that it was the word of god.
>
No you are only suggesting that it has to make "sense" at a level that
is basically impossible to achieve.
> This is rec.arts.drwho - a usenet group
Thank you. I've never used usenet before.
> It's rare that
> all the posters here enjoy the show simply for what it is.
That's fine. Don't enjoy it, then.
> We're fans and
> discuss the show for what we think it could/should be.
Fans or whiners?
> We share our opinions
> and criticisms of one of our favourite TV shows.
Then why are you engaging me about something that isn't about Dr. Who?
>
> Why are you here?
>
>
I thought you said you were here to share your opinions and criticisms
of one of your favorite TV shows. What, then, has this question got to
do with that?
Welcome aboard the real Internet engine.
>
>> It's rare that
>> all the posters here enjoy the show simply for what it is.
>
>That's fine. Don't enjoy it, then.
>
>
>
>> We're fans and
>> discuss the show for what we think it could/should be.
>
>
>Fans or whiners?
>
>
>> We share our opinions
>> and criticisms of one of our favourite TV shows.
>
>Then why are you engaging me about something that isn't about Dr. Who?
>
>>
>> Why are you here?
>>
>>
>
>I thought you said you were here to share your opinions and criticisms
>of one of your favorite TV shows. What, then, has this question got to
>do with that?
>
>
>> Why not? It's apparently how it works, as it did indeed work that way.
>
> It's not consistent with suspension of other metabolic processes.
Maybe the facility was able to deal with it somehow. Are you honestly
expecting metabolic processes to work as you expect they would in a show
with a time machine in it?
The metabolic processes were either in some way altered or did not apply.
Real science does not apply. Trying to apply real science in a show that
is utterly without any realistic science is nonsensical.
>
> It's not about possibility but consistency.
>
Maybe the rules are supposed to change, and since they do all the time,
that must be how it works in the Dr. Who universe.
That makes it consistent.
The problem is that, even in real life, you can't always have internal
consistency. Look at the JFK assassination. You have 50 ways of telling
the same exact story. Some bits are missing here or there. People take
all sides of an issue, and interpret things differently, or to a degree
another person would find implausible.
Your suspension of disbelief depends on what you are willing to disbelieve.
> Where
> internal rules are not given, external rules apply. People tolerate some pretty
> wild premises, like a time travelling blue box or vampires and teenager that
> slays them, if the rules of the premise are consistently applied.
> Inconsistencies interfere with suspension of disbelief, and when severe, break
> it completely.
I think the issue here is how stringently you are willing to apply
external rules, or how willingly you are willing to just accept what is
going on without detailed and time consuming exposition. The phrase
"Take it as given" comes into play. You just take it as given that the
things you see are possible within the story.
I understand what you are saying, though. When things make no sense, but
asking questions like "Where did she get food from" aren't about not
making sense. Those are details of things not shown, but are explainable
in many ways, and are unimportant to the story at hand.
>
> In my case I can't accept Amy was no where offerred to speak to an actual person
> who could recognise the system glitched for her and correct it. That is so basic
> to human systems I can't accept aliens would not consider it.
>
Planes today can basically fly on their own. All sorts of systems run
automatically. So why not this thing? Maybe all the aliens were afraid
of going into the place. Maybe they were all dead. Anything can be true,
or not true. These details do not interfere with the basic storyline.
>> The metabolic processes were either in some way altered or did not apply.
>
> What others are caught on is that some processes were alterred and others were
> not.
I guess that's how it must work then. Either that, or the system served
her a buffet every evening. Or some other thing.
> If she had a lifetime experience while only aging one day, they wouldn't
> need to have Rory make a terrible choice at the end: so the rules appear to be
> only to give Rory a bad time. It's harder to feel anything for character being
> jerked around by the writers like a Punch or Judy doll.
Characters are always only jerked around by a Punch and Judy doll. John
Cleese once mentioned how on Fawlty Towers how he felt like a god moving
Basil around in a little maze until he came to his unpleasant end each
episode.
The easiest thing to do, really, is to say, "this is how it works."
Otherwise, maybe the machine made her sandwiches. In any case, it was
taken care of, somehow, in a manner you did not need to see.
>
> I laughed at the end of Torchwood series 2 because the premises were so
> ridiculous: a reactor would fail to scram on loss of power; the staff would flee
> the safety of the control room; the containment could vent through the control
> room; that three people would simultaneously enter lockable rooms with nobody
> standing outside in case the rooms somehow did lock. I also cheer the dinosaurs
> in Jurrasiac Park sequels because the humans were such idiot dicks they all
> deserved their fates.
You managed to watch the Jurassic Park sequels? Wow.
>
> If you're okay with creating expensive, unintentional comedies, ignore the rules.
The rules constantly change. That's one of the rules.
>
>> Maybe the rules are supposed to change, and since they do all the time,
>> that must be how it works in the Dr. Who universe.
>
> Drama and good comedy arise from characters coping with restrictions. If the
> writer simply alters the restrictions because they've written themselves into a
> corner, it ceases to be drama and becomes bad comedy.
Yes. Restrictions. And those restrictions change to suit the story.
Honestly, you can't have 50 years of stories without contradictory
instances. You can't even do it with non-fiction. If the rules never
change, and they keep piling on top of one another, the shows would not
be of much interest, as nothing would be able to be done. Can't do that,
can't do this....Dr. Who would consist of people sitting around going
"oh well..."
>
> HG Wells used a deus ex machina ending to War of the Worlds to make a socialist
> point about power of the underclass against the elite of society. However the
> deus ex machina is so ridiculous, it's hard to get that point. (It's much
> clearer in the TIme Machine.) His other point about inflicting on the English
> what they were at that time inflicting on India and Africa does stand. (It's
> hard to tell if Battlefield LA was intended to compare Los Angeles to Baghdad
> and Kabul.)
>
Battlefield LA was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
As true as that is, I have yet to see anyone say where they got this
particular "rule" from. NOTHING in this episode contradicted any
established rule* -- there's no past story where someone is placed in
a compressed time stream and ages but needs to eat, there's no story
where someone is placed in a compressed time stream and neither ages
nor needs to eat.
All we've gotten is "I made up my own rules about how this should work
based on nothing at all in the show, and they violated those rules!"
Folks here have a LONG history of failing to realize that your own
drawn conclusions, however logical they may seem based on the evidence
on-screen so far, are NOT THE SAME THING as things we have actually
been shown and told. That time was accelerated, or that any particular
biological processes were sped up, slowed down or suspended, those are
all *guesses* based on what we were told, they are *not* facts, no
matter how much the person saying it is convinced that their
explanation is the only possible one.
(Me, I believe that Twin Tracks is using a higher-dimensional analogue
(that is, something which is in an important respect _similar to_, but
is not _the same as_, and therefore not simply dismissed by pointing
out some element of the analogy which could not be literally true of
this scenario) of the quantum immortality thought experiment: by
running all the days of the patient's life "in parallel", all the
normal life functions still go on, but it impossible for them to
*experience* dying by any cause, because it's impossible to be alive
at any point later in your life than when you died, so in a
parallelized time-track, there is always a point later in your life
where you are alive which already exists. Or, "simply", "old you"
can't die as long as "young you" is alive, and "young you" isn't going
to starve to death in a single day. Which is, quite obviously,
difficult to comprehend and goes against our intuitive understanding
of how time and causality works, but is it really any more bizarre
than all the rest of quantum mechanics? )
(* I don't think the two amys ever physically touched. If they did,
this would on its surface be a rule change from Mawdryn Undead, though
that rule has alredy been heavily modified and qualified by The Big
Bang and A Christmas Carol)
For the most part, there is no way to make that same comparison with
science fiction on TV. There is very little "realistic" science in
anything that is in modern television for children to even make that
decision.
Of course, science fiction generally deals with space travel,
something which humans in general have lost their fascination with, so
there isn't really an incentive for producers to even attempt to predict
what things will be like in a realistic way.
>
> Today, I'm coming across more and more children (and adults) who are so
> gullible it's almost unbelievable. They'll believe the claims of vicars,
> snake oil peddlers and completely unsubstantiated claims from so many
> quarters simply because they don't have the ability to work out when
> something makes sense and when it doesn't. Of course, this all works to the
> benefit of more unscupulous people who are able to take money from so many
> gullible idiots with such ease.
Partly because children aren't EXPECTED to work things out anymore.
Society is being taught to simply accept that what you hear on the news,
read on the internet, and hear out of politicians' mouths is the truth.
I know of a few children that have no idea how to research an idea
other than to Google it.
>
>> I don't expect Dr. Who shows to make a lot of sense, but that's merely
>> the result of observation, not a normative statement.
>
> Exactly. I still enjoy Dr Who. Unfortunately I don't expect it to make
> sense, but I'd enjoy the show just a little more if it at least tried. Back
> in the Troughton days, Kit Pedler was brought in as an unofficial science
> advisor. He'd read through scripts, and instead of saying "you can't do
> that", he'd offer more rational alternatives: "it doesn't make sense that
> way, but if you did it this way..."
>
> And that's all that is needed. Somebody who has a basic science background
> who can help the show avoid basic clangers. Someone who can work with the
> writers who have more of an artistic background who may have good ideas for
> stories but who just aren't able to implement them sensibly.
No arguments there.
You don't have to know where the rule comes from, only observe that this
is the rule.
For example, gravity. Gravity exists. It's a rule. We don't know fully
know the exact mechanism of it, but it still works.
>
> All we've gotten is "I made up my own rules about how this should work
> based on nothing at all in the show, and they violated those rules!"
Then they just invented more rules. When the show first started, all it
did was violate rules. Things happen on the show, and have always
happened on the show based on nothing at all. Just the ramblings of some
writer someplace that made up something that sounded good at the time.
> That time was accelerated, or that any particular
> biological processes were sped up, slowed down or suspended, those are
> all *guesses* based on what we were told, they are *not* facts, no
> matter how much the person saying it is convinced that their
> explanation is the only possible one.
>
What you were told. What you were told may not have been all the facts,
or what you were told may have in said in error. The simple fact is that
it worked somehow, and there is no full explanation how. For the story
to proceed you don't need a full explanation.
> (Me, I believe that Twin Tracks is using a higher-dimensional analogue
> (that is, something which is in an important respect _similar to_, but
> is not _the same as_, and therefore not simply dismissed by pointing
> out some element of the analogy which could not be literally true of
> this scenario) of the quantum immortality thought experiment: by
> running all the days of the patient's life "in parallel", all the
> normal life functions still go on, but it impossible for them to
> *experience* dying by any cause, because it's impossible to be alive
> at any point later in your life than when you died, so in a
> parallelized time-track, there is always a point later in your life
> where you are alive which already exists. Or, "simply", "old you"
> can't die as long as "young you" is alive, and "young you" isn't going
> to starve to death in a single day. Which is, quite obviously,
> difficult to comprehend and goes against our intuitive understanding
> of how time and causality works, but is it really any more bizarre
> than all the rest of quantum mechanics? )
>
Sounds like a fine theory. As good as any. I think my theory is a bit
simpler: It just works out that way, and somehow it was taken care of in
some manner.
>
>
> (* I don't think the two amys ever physically touched. If they did,
> this would on its surface be a rule change from Mawdryn Undead, though
> that rule has alredy been heavily modified and qualified by The Big
> Bang and A Christmas Carol)
Yes, so, it is not a consistent rule. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it
doesn't. I guess we don't know all the rules. They must change for
particular situations which we are unable as viewers to determine.
For that matter... if Amy is already in isolation, why are all those
handbots wandering around trying to give medication to people who are going
to die in a day anyway?
>>
>> Why does the computer think she's carrying the virus in the first place?
>> Aren't the handbots supposed to be able to detect if it's there or not?
>
> For that matter... if Amy is already in isolation, why are all those
> handbots wandering around trying to give medication to people who are going
> to die in a day anyway?
>
Because she had an unexpected bacteria that they thought should not be
there.
>
>
They created the timeline to cause the aging and experience of a
lifetime while the eating and disease continued existed in real time.
Do you remember the basic premise?
===
= DUG.
===
I'm not from Yorkshire. As I said, educate yourself before you mouth off...