Doesn't that mean we haven't seen their complete life spans? You mean untimely as in "not of natural causes, including age", right? The idea that just because a body looks near the end to us, that it might be Gallifreyan spring chicken is still a possibility, no?

Well, technically we've seen the span of time each body has been in one visage. I was on crack when I wrote that. I was trying to explain to a self-professed Dr. Who newbie that we've seen the entire "life" of each doctor, and did so badly.

I haven't watched the finale yet. Actually I haven't finished Boom Town.

Dad and I had a nice Father's Day, we watched The Pirate Planet. Then I made copies of half of the new Dr Who and gave it to him. Although I gave him a quick preview of Rose, so he could see the new Doctor.

I'm not sure when he'll get a chance to watch them but I'm anxiious to hear his take in Eccleston.

In Remembrance of the Daleks the Seventh Doctor said that he had "900 years experience" rewiring alien equipment.

I'm thinking that the changing age can be fanwanked to indicate that his linear time in existance has been much more than the appearance of passing time in normal earth duration.

Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket.

Or? He has lost track from time to time...

Background: Am-Chau and I were discussing The Time Traveller's Wife in Literary, and I noted that I had come up with terminology for 2different types of time-travel stories:Closed-loop, wherein actions in the past cause the present that the traveler(s) left from, and Open-loop, wherein the time-traveler(s)'s actions in the past change the present. I also commented that Stargate was the only canon I myself knew of that contained both, and she said that she would be interested in discussing that. (Further reflection has led me to think that it's probable that Star Trek may well have both, within a singel iteration).

On Stargate, it seems very odd to me that it was necessary for SG-1 to go back and cause 1969, but not for them to go back and cause Mobeus, and I do not know how you reconcile that. 1969 has that classic Closed-Loop problem of "The First Time through the loop, how did Hammond know when the flares would be (this is where my brain starts trying to escape from my skull on Closed-Loop stories). So, short version: I have a hard time getting my brain around having both kinds of time-travel in the same Universe.

Maybe different methods of time travel have different effects on the timestream? Like how in DC comics the Phantom Stranger can only observe invisibly and not interfere when he goes back in time via magic but Per Degaton can use his particular scientific devices to travel back and alter the past?

You what's a good day? A good day is going to see Batman Begins, which has the Serenity trailer attached, and then coming home to watch the Dr. Who finale.

A better day for me would have been Christopher Eccelston doing the show for another series, but I'll be OK. I'm sure I'll like the new guy, too. I just fell in love with CE is all .

The finale: loved all three kisses. Loved Rose being so damn fierce about getting back... and saving the world, also good .

I hope they bring Jack back; he makes me smile .

In closing, I remain in love.

t thinks

Oooh. Maybe. Wait. No. I really did think that might solve it, but no. 2010 and 1969 are the same method, and 2010 is Open Loop, whereas 1969 is Closed.

Re: Captain Jack - I found the following on Wikipedia, but I don't know how accurate it is:

John Barrowman will be returning as Jack Harkness in series two, but not in the first block of episodes.

Edit: apparently that news was announced by RTD at a BBC press conference, so it looks to be fairly reliable after all.

Hi! Somehow I'd missed that folks were doing DW discussion in here, as I've been doing all mine on lj. All I'll say for now is that I love Jack, and am deeply confused by the concept that emotions reside in the DNA. But I'm trying to ignore the non-science at the moment; there's plenty of time between now and Christmas to puzzle over that.

Oooh. Maybe. Wait. No. I really did think that might solve it, but no. 2010 and 1969 are the same method, and 2010 is Open Loop, whereas 1969 is Closed.

There's something very weird going on there. A difference between going backwards and going forwards? It seems unlikely, but it's possible that at some point in the future they would (even unknowingly) close the loop on 2010.

Would you like to expand on the Trek examples, too? My knowledge of that canon is much patchier, but I'd be interested to hear the theory anyway.

I always enjoy pointing out Bill and Ted's Excelletn Adventure when discussing time travel, because in their movie, they need to get out of a jam and they're like, Okay, later, I have to remember to go back in time and put McGuffin behind the potted plant! And they look behind the potted plant, and the McGuffin is there for them.

It's a good thing they remembered all the McGuffin-placement they had on their hands.

Then again, in the same movie, we're to understand that Abe Lincoln, Napoleon, and sundry other historical figures had themselves a modern mall experience, complete with synth pianos and ice skating, and did not subsequently mention it in their memoirs. Dude! What if Bill or Ted mentioned to Lincoln that he would be assassinated? Spoilers for your own life!