/who/ - Doctor Who General

>yfw series 10 is GOAT

Last thread

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KDxM4vvVlfE
youtube.com/watch?v=bn_i3EsWJn8&ab_channel=RosaMagalhães
youtube.com/watch?v=Xlw-Q1WGR_4&ab_channel=RosaMagalhães
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I think he's using the general-relativity "block spacetime" view of the universe, possibly together with "emergent time" or "timeless" theories like Julian Barbour's, as a metaphor for human experience. To oversimplify a bit:

There's no difference between space and time. A second ago or an inch to the right, they're both the same thing. Nothing moves through time; everything just is where/when it is in spacetime.

But events tend to contain records of events in their past, but not of events to their right. And from that distinction, you can derive a very close approximation of linear time as we experience it. (Well, at least you can in a toy version of general relativity.)

Now, instead of thinking about records at the physical level, think about experiences and memories at the human level. All of your experiences are out there, in the same way that a table in the next house over is out there.

But without a past and a future, what's the point of life?

Well, you can define the past: it's not the traces of subatomic forces, it's the experiences that shaped you as a person. That definition won't work for anyone else (because for them, the past is the experiences that shaped them, not you), but it will work for you. Time is relative to your life.

That version is of course no longer literally true, but there's some metaphorical truth to it.

As for "Time And Relative Dimension In Space", that's wedged in there a bit clumsily, but it's pretty obvious why he did that.

And I'm sure I did a terrible job explaining block spacetime and first-order emergent time theory, but you can google for that

/who/ btfo

Thank you very much for taking my question seriously and giving this excellent answer. I understand it so much better now, and both 12's speech and your explanation are beautiful. Many thanks!

have faith in reviewbrah

>But does the OP pic pull it off?
>I mean I guess. It's fucking Dr. Who bro.
>Capaldi can do whatever the fuck he wants and still good OP
Um, yeah, BTFO?

>Two problems with a straight answer: I can't divorce the look from character, and my feelings toward same; two, his age is key. Old guys can pull off things like kinetic colors, no go items like hats, and vibrant patterns.

>I'll dodge the question by deferring to . This is that 1%

("That 1%" refers to "It looks good like 1% of the time".)

>being this mad

>quoting people is mad

yeah you're reeeeeeing now

I know that a lot of series use the general theory of relativity that Doctor Who essentially doesn't really brush on.

Um… yeah, sure user.

What do you mean?

>rreeeeeeee
it's time for you to stop posting

copy paste this post, copy-paste-user

I like "Class" too. The plain girl is anything but.

I have an extremely bad understanding of the concept but got this off google:
>Similarly, temporal duration depends on the observer. This relativistic effect is called time dilation. Summarized briefly: Moving clocks are slower than stationary ones.
So in Haldeman's 'The Forever War' people on the ships age much slowly than the people back home due to the effects of time dilation.

Star Wars, Hyperion Cantos, Firefall etc and a whole bunch of other science fiction also ignores it but it's really confusing to get my head around.

I think that's where the concept of 'space and time' is interrelated comes from.

And also this:
>It turns out that as an object moves with relativistic speeds a "strange" thing seems to happen to its time as observed by "us" the stationary observer (observer in an inertial reference frame). What we see happen is that the "clock" in motion slows down according to our clock, therefore we read two different times. Which time is correct??? well they both are because time is not absolute but is relative, it depends on the reference frame. Let's look at the following classic example. There is a set of twins, one an astronaut, the other works for mission control of NASA. The astronaut leaves on a deep space trip traveling at 95% the speed of light. Upon returning the astronauts clock has measured ten years, so yhe astronaut has aged 10 years. However, when the astronaut reunites with his earth bound twin, the astronauthe sees that the twin has aged 32 years! This is explained due to the fact that the astronaut's twin is traveling at relativistic speeds and therefore his "clock" is slowed down.

Oh I get what you mean now! Yeah that makes sense as relating to what he said too.

Thread reminder that The Pilot was kino. All other opinions are reddit

It leads to an interesting question on how the TARDIS actually functions. We know that it is mapped onto the space time vortex in mathematics but what about the general theory of relativity? How does that tie in if it does exist in the whoniverse?

Doctor Who is science-flavoured fantasy, not hard science fiction. It just picks and choose things that sound neat from all over physics (and other sciences, and even fringe pseudoscience).

That means a lot of it is nonsense if you take it seriously. The very idea that it's "the same time" on Earth and Gallifrey when they're light years apart isn't even wrong, but meaningless. But that's fantasy; as long as the stories work, they work.

(There's nothing wrong with hard SF, of course. Haldeman's good, and there are people like Egan or Forward who can get far more gonzo than him while sticking even closer to plausible physics, and build great stories around it.)

Part of her plainness (which is explored in future eps) is that "nice" people aren't perceived as interesting or attractive as edgier folk. As a somewhat peaceful, specifically non-aggressive person, I could empathize.

Reminder that you're in the "the episode wasn't absolute shit so therefore it's 10/10" honeymoon period
It'll go down (rightfully so) as a solid 7/10

Doctor Who can be inclusive of most any genre though so there's no reason hard SF Doctor Who stories can't work (some do, some don't).

Are you also as "plain" (read: attractive) as her?

She did say that nice people were perceived as (I think) fragile.

Also, the joke about the Bechdel Test was absolutely fucking hilarious if you got it.

tfw she lost her purity and got rammed

how did class do in the US? Are the ratings out yet?

Why are ratings figures trusted so much when they're calculated by monitoring select houses and extrapolating the results to generalize it for the greater population as a whole?

I wouldn't know. No one ever asked me out, and I just started learning how to be RL sociable at the very end of my stint in college. I've never had any girl wolf-whistle at me, or anything.

I've been called a "good-looking young man" by my family, whatever that means.

And again, I never asked anyone out. People might have found me attractive, but they never told me.

>I've been called a "good-looking young man" by my family, whatever that means.
It means literally nothing. They're socially obligated to say that, and even if they are telling the truth their opinions are biased by a pre-existing emotional connection

Doesn't mean he isn't actually a good-looking young man though, just that they'd say it anyways.And also, while most families would say it, some are barbed enough to not bother.

It's funny because of the look that April gives.

Also, do you know that there are Class novels? They were pretty good. Don't read them until you've seen up to Ep 4.

>got rammed

Was that pun intentional?

>Was that pun intentional?
of course silly

Yeah, but most of the successful hardish-SF Doctor Who stories are in the novels.

Actually, it's more special relativity (the simpler version where you don't worry about gravity or acceleration) than general, but…

As far as time dilation, once you have faster-than-light travel in your universe (like Star Trek, Star Wars, and even the non-time-sensitive "lesser races" in Doctor Who), that's not an issue anymore. Sure, you could get to the next star in 30 minutes of ship time but 10 years of back-home time, but you can just turn on the warp drive or whatever and get there in 30 minutes of back-home time.

Simultaneity is a much bigger issue, but it basically comes down to the fact that all FTL is effectively time travel, in that it brings in all the same paradoxes. But Doctor Who (unlike Star Trek, etc.) has already bitten that bullet; it's all about time travel, and deals with avoiding paradoxes every few weeks. Which means Doctor Who can usually ignore relativity there, too; if they want a paradox story, there's a much easier way to write one.

/who/ complained about that joke for so long

Sampling and statistical modeling is a very well understood science. When done right, you know the error bounds for extrapolating from a sample—when they say "5.1 million", what that actually means is "there's a 95% chance that it's within 4.9 - 5.3 million", which is very useful information.

There are other problems with ratings (especially BARB's—I have very little faith in any of their numbers), but extrapolating from a select sample to a population is not one of them.

I don't see how anyone could trust sampling and statistical modeling after the 2016 election. It's clearly a deeply flawed """""science""""" that's too heavily influenced by subjective factors from the people collecting/interpreting the data

>not hard science fiction
Some of the EU is borderline hard scifi. I guess how soft it is depends on the writer.

Seriously?

The average polling results were off by about 1%. Obviously, the difference between "Clinton elected" and "Trump elected" is a major difference, and there's a sharp edge where 1% pushes you from one to the other, but there aren't any problems like that in, say, TV ratings—there's just no situation where 7M is great and 6.93M is terrible.

And, even more importantly, the best aggregate model out there (538's) said there was a 69/31 chance.

Of course there were pundits out there who interpreted that 31% chance as meaning "impossible". But that only means that pundits are stupid. 31% chances happen frequently (almost a third of the time).

So is Peter Capaldi's favorite DW story Evil of the Daleks?

Maybe? How would we know?

Oh I bet! It is totally worth hating. How DARE they? And still, funny as hell, if only because you KNOW "they" will be outraged. It works on so many levels (for me). I absolutely howled.

when are we getting a fucking chumbley

Presumably we'd know if he's said so in an interview?

But didn't he say that The Tenth Planet was his favourite story, and isn't that the whole reason we're getting first-gen Mondasian Cybermen this series?

Sorry, but what the fuck are you talking about?

is this bait?

screencap this

The first episode of class makes a joke about the bechdel test (aka "if your movie/film/whatever doesn't have two female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man it's sexist")
I forget the exact quote
The joke was just "dude reference lmao" and hardly worth expending any effort complaining about

youtube.com/watch?v=KDxM4vvVlfE
Look how annoyed Peter is when that bitch shouted she doesn't love Jenna
And he said it was his favorite at the moment of this interview

But if you do know what it is and you do understand why it is annoying, if was just perfect and the sort of thing you so wish people would say.

Yeah, I know that. You just lost me when you started talking about """them""".

/who/ hated that character and would describe her as "racist", it was really embarrassing. they wouldn't let the harmless jokes go

She had a huge fucking victim complex and kept bringing up racial divides where it wasn't applicable in the slightest

>if was just perfect and the sort of thing you so wish people would say.
you might want to try that sentence again user

Are you trying to say it was a "yeah haha take that men btfo" moment for you?

No she didn't. You're probably one of the anons I'm talking about lol

And she was called out on it later in the series

It's been half a year since I've watched the show so I can't quote a scene but she absolutely fucking did
From what I remember there was even a scene where she tried to bond with ram on the premise of them both being non-white and he called her out on it or something

youtube.com/watch?v=bn_i3EsWJn8&ab_channel=RosaMagalhães

A lovely video from /who/'s resident Portuguese qt. Please leave a nice comment and a like :)

>waah I'm younger than youse why do you treat my like a kid
>waah I'm not white so I inherently am worse off beacuse of skin color
>waah I'm a woman so I'm inherently worse off due to my lack of a dick

genuinely atrocious character

>I can't remember any details but it totally happened!
Sure

It's interesting that you're the one to bring up "victim complexes", since it's been half a year and you're still buttblasted about a harmless white people joke

>studying is 100 times more important than watching Doctor Who
But it's not as important as watching her watch Doctor Who, right /who/?

>me personally I loved this episode, very cool

Except it wasn't even played as a joke, user. even backs me up, a definite part of her character was her victim complex. Even ignoring race shit, she kept on complaining about how she was getting 'treated like a kid' when the rest of the class crew treated her exactly the same as any of the others. Her insecurities were completely unfounded and she always found something external to blame. She's not a pleasant character to watch - she's not a "love to hate" and you can't sympathize with her because her oppressions are all made up

What no one seems to notice, is that April replies back with a "What are you talking about?"

Tanya's a pretty clever character, as she's someone who tries to use her "wokeness" to cover up her insecurities about fitting into the group. None of the other characters ever really react to her political complaints (when she says "isn't it nice we're not talking about what the white people are", Ram doesn't seem to know what to say). Although it's definitely a good thing that she's politically aware--she's the one who really understands the weird power dynamics of Charlie and Quill's relationship, and she's also the quickest thinker in the group--it also becomes a flaw.

>waah this character was different than me therefore they're atrocious
>waah this character had traits i found unlikable therefore the writing was shit
>waah my victim complex prevents me empathising with anyone not superficially like me

Jokes on you I'm doing both at the same time

>Except it wasn't even played as a joke, user
Yes it was, it was an extremely mild throwaway line that /who/ never let go of

Remember how I said "there was even a scene where she tried to bond with ram on the premise of them both being non-white"?

has a direct quote
>isn't it nice we're not talking about what the white people are doing?
>ram doesn't know how to respond

I was right, user. You're full of shit.

(((Them)))

lmao everything about it, the delivery, the music underneath, the performances, literally everything about it made abundantly clear it was a throwaway joke

Although I agree she's insecure, she's also the one who realized that Charlie and Quill do not have a healthy relationship. That's a positive attribute.

(She also develops a relationship with Quill, possibly because they both understand being the underdog. The books admittedly flesh that out more.)

see

I go looking for validation, and you make me feel even worse.

Well, I'm studying her reactions, does that count as studying?

What specific scene are you talking about, user? Tanya makes multiple race/sex remarks, you keep acting like we're only talking about one specific one

Not at all. She was recognizing the reality of somehow they had begun talking to each other about "a man." It was a humorous recognition of the reality, not a denunciation of it. More of an "oh well" than an "oh fuck."

I'm not your user pal

lmao at these prats getting triggered by a fucking joke

In what way does that invalidate what I'm saying?

Tanya's "wokeness" is an intentional part of her character, and it's presented as a flaw that puts other people off. It's not just PNess virtue signalling or anything like that, he's intentionally writing Tanya as a flawed insecure character with a victim complex - which is exactly what I've been saying since the start

I'm agreeing with you user?

"see" posts tend to be a rebuke
never mind

There's the one in Detained, but everyone is acting out of character for specific reasons. And she's called out.

There's the one in the petals story, but it's intentional. And it's meant to deconstruct Charlie.

Night visiting, her focus ep, didn't have any weird remarks, I think.

I agree the writer was having a laff there.

how long until the americans lose interest?

my bad then, i just meant that that post supplemented your point

>Remember how I said "there was even a scene where she tried to bond with ram on the premise of them both being non-white"?
Yep. That's the scene I've been referring to the entire time, the one people like you embarrassingly think is racist and never shut the fuck up about.

Do they have interest to begin with?

don't know, the ratings aren't out as far as I'm aware

The distinction is that Tanya has a legitimate nose for oppression, and is legitimately against racism and sexist, but also has insecurities, which manifest as insecure remarks. She's the youngest of the group, and will probably grow out of it. Yes, she has a victim complex--but that doesn't mean she is always wrong when calling something out--i.e., Charlie and Quill.

youtube.com/watch?v=Xlw-Q1WGR_4&ab_channel=RosaMagalhães

omg she eats in this one :))) definitely my fave reaction video

Ignoring arguing over the semantics of what's racist or not, it's obnoxious as fuck, came out of nowhere and makes her character look bad. It has a place in the story given her character but you can't seriously be defending her comment as being warranted in-universe

It's been to long, what are you referring to with charlie and quill being called out?

Is tanya meant to be a likeable character?
if your answer is "yes", please explain why and provide examples

>Tfw Heather isn't the new companion.

>it's obnoxious as fuck, came out of nowhere and makes her character look bad
Disagree to all 3.

>but you can't seriously be defending her comment as being warranted in-universe
Why not? What about it is so offensive to you?

Talk about a victim complex, christ.

>tfw shona isn't the new companion

do you know what a victim complex is? I'm not a victim. Don't just throw words around like they mean anything.

>Isn't it nice to not be talking about black people?
If you find this statement offensive, you have no grounds to defend what tanya said.

Since there are people in this thread watching Class for the first time, I'll use spoiler tags.

Class spoilers

When Tanya told Charlie that forcing Quill to do his bidding was slavery. She was the proper one to tell him that, as she was sensitive to oppression in any format, and Charlie, as a privileged prince from his planet who saw his society as perfect.

There's a thing where people are seeing Tanya as either a irredeemable jerks, or a woke saint. She's a little bit of both, and 14. Most people were immature at 14.

Post your favourite story from each medium for each doctor.

1
TV: The Tenth Planet

2
TV: Enemy of the World

3
TV: The Mind of Evil

4
TV: Horror of Fang Rock

5
TV: Resurrection of the Daleks
Audio: Primeval

6
TV: Trial of a Timelord
Audio: The Holy Terror

7
TV: Remembrance of the Daleks
Audio: Colditz

8
TV: Doctor Who (easy pick)
Audio: Chimes of Midnight

9
TV: Dalek

10
TV: The Waters of Mars
Audio: Time Reaver

11
TV: Amy's Choice

12
TV: Mummy on the Orient Express

I need to infosorb more who

She loos like a trannie.

>being upset that the character who had barely any lines and no charisma isn't the companion

user...

...