Discussion:
2nd Season Dr. Who - The Impossible Planet - 5 star poll - SPOILERS AHOY !
Add Reply
George Avalos
2006-11-18 06:41:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who


5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)

0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)

-George
p***@aol.com
2006-11-18 06:54:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.

Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?), but as the build-up half of a two-parter
it did its job better than most, I liked the setting and even though
they're far from scary and kill people with electric yo-yos, I quite
like the Ood as well.

Phil
t***@dcn.davis.ca.us
2006-11-18 09:51:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?), but as the build-up half of a two-parter
it did its job better than most, I liked the setting and even though
they're far from scary and kill people with electric yo-yos, I quite
like the Ood as well.
Is the planet actually INSIDE the event horizon?

If the Doctor, Rose, and the ship's crew manage to escape, I preidct
that they will discover that years passed by in the outside universe,
since time slows down near or inside a black hole.
Anim8rFSK
2006-11-18 15:23:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by t***@dcn.davis.ca.us
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?), but as the build-up half of a two-parter
it did its job better than most, I liked the setting and even though
they're far from scary and kill people with electric yo-yos, I quite
like the Ood as well.
Is the planet actually INSIDE the event horizon?
If the Doctor, Rose, and the ship's crew manage to escape, I preidct
that they will discover that years passed by in the outside universe,
since time slows down near or inside a black hole.
Does years passing really matter to time travellers?
--
Killfile Troy Heagy in all his many incarnations now:
***@gmail.com,***@yahoo.com
***@yahoo.com,***@yahoo.com
Tim Bruening
2006-11-18 19:26:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by t***@dcn.davis.ca.us
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?), but as the build-up half of a two-parter
it did its job better than most, I liked the setting and even though
they're far from scary and kill people with electric yo-yos, I quite
like the Ood as well.
Is the planet actually INSIDE the event horizon?
If the Doctor, Rose, and the ship's crew manage to escape, I preidct
that they will discover that years passed by in the outside universe,
since time slows down near or inside a black hole.
Does years passing really matter to time travellers?
It would matter to the crew of the ship.
Anim8rFSK
2006-11-18 21:04:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by t***@dcn.davis.ca.us
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?), but as the build-up half of a two-parter
it did its job better than most, I liked the setting and even though
they're far from scary and kill people with electric yo-yos, I quite
like the Ood as well.
Is the planet actually INSIDE the event horizon?
If the Doctor, Rose, and the ship's crew manage to escape, I preidct
that they will discover that years passed by in the outside universe,
since time slows down near or inside a black hole.
Does years passing really matter to time travellers?
It would matter to the crew of the ship.
Who aren't time travellers. It certainly wouldn't matter to the Doctor
or Rose.
--
Killfile Troy Heagy in all his many incarnations now:
***@gmail.com,***@yahoo.com
***@yahoo.com,***@yahoo.com
Ken from Chicago
2006-11-19 15:10:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by t***@dcn.davis.ca.us
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?), but as the build-up half of a two-parter
it did its job better than most, I liked the setting and even though
they're far from scary and kill people with electric yo-yos, I quite
like the Ood as well.
Is the planet actually INSIDE the event horizon?
If the Doctor, Rose, and the ship's crew manage to escape, I preidct
that they will discover that years passed by in the outside universe,
since time slows down near or inside a black hole.
Does years passing really matter to time travellers?
It would matter to the crew of the ship.
Who aren't time travellers. It certainly wouldn't matter to the Doctor
or Rose.
--
If the planet was inside the event horizon it would be surrounded by stellar
debris.

IOW, it wouldn't matter to the Doctor or Rose aka the stars of the show.

-- Ken from Chicago
*com (Dan Lanciani)
2006-11-18 20:56:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, ***@dcn.davis.ca.us writes:

| If the Doctor, Rose, and the ship's crew manage to escape, I preidct
| that they will discover that years passed by in the outside universe,
| since time slows down near or inside a black hole.

Well, the Doctor and Rose probably wouldn't care since (a) they didn't
know what time it was to begin with and (b) the Doctor will undoubtedly
have recovered his Tardis by then. But there will likely be some
annoying Law of Time preventing the Doctor from dropping any remaining
crew off when they want to be...

Dan Lanciani
***@danlan.*com
Beeblebear
2006-11-18 10:39:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an explanation for how
the planet was there. It was scientifically implausible/impossible, but I
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Post by p***@aol.com
but as the build-up half of a two-parter
it did its job better than most, I liked the setting and even though
they're far from scary and kill people with electric yo-yos, I quite
like the Ood as well.
Phil
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
p***@aol.com
2006-11-18 11:08:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an explanation for how
the planet was there. It was scientifically implausible/impossible, but I
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.

And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.

Phil
Anim8rFSK
2006-11-18 15:24:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
--
Killfile Troy Heagy in all his many incarnations now:
***@gmail.com,***@yahoo.com
***@yahoo.com,***@yahoo.com
Eric D. Berge
2006-11-18 16:26:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
When was Captain Jack from?
Robert Shaw
2006-11-18 16:52:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric D. Berge
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
When was Captain Jack from?
Around 5000AD, making him a near contemporary of Magnus Greel
(The Talons of Weng Chiang). However, Magnus's time machine
had severe design flaws.

In Doctor Who, humans have had time travel since the 20th
century, maybe earlier. One third Doctor story had unaided
humans pulling dinosaurs out of the past.

However, it was suggested that the Time Lords didn't approve
of lesser species trespassing on their domain. With them gone,
humans can develop time travel without the Celestial Intelligence
Agency interfering.
--
'It is a wise crow that knows which way the camel points' - Pratchett
Robert Shaw
Anim8rFSK
2006-11-18 17:37:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Shaw
Post by Eric D. Berge
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
When was Captain Jack from?
Around 5000AD, making him a near contemporary of Magnus Greel
(The Talons of Weng Chiang). However, Magnus's time machine
had severe design flaws.
Is that where Jack is from, or was that just a recent stop? I thought
he was a 20th Century guy who travelled to the future andn then back
again.
Post by Robert Shaw
In Doctor Who, humans have had time travel since the 20th
century, maybe earlier. One third Doctor story had unaided
humans pulling dinosaurs out of the past.
However, it was suggested that the Time Lords didn't approve
of lesser species trespassing on their domain. With them gone,
humans can develop time travel without the Celestial Intelligence
Agency interfering.
--
Killfile Troy Heagy in all his many incarnations now:
***@gmail.com,***@yahoo.com
***@yahoo.com,***@yahoo.com
Jack Bohn
2006-11-18 22:43:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
The robots from the SS Madame Pompadour were able to jury-rig
time travel from their space warp.
--
-Jack
Tim Bruening
2017-01-15 04:07:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
The robots from the SS Madame Pompadour were able to jury-rig
time travel from their space warp.
Why did they need her head?
The Doctor
2017-01-15 13:28:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
The robots from the SS Madame Pompadour were able to jury-rig
time travel from their space warp.
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Tim Bruening
2017-01-15 17:14:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
The robots from the SS Madame Pompadour were able to jury-rig
time travel from their space warp.
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
The Doctor
2017-01-15 23:58:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
The robots from the SS Madame Pompadour were able to jury-rig
time travel from their space warp.
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-16 06:58:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
The robots from the SS Madame Pompadour were able to jury-rig
time travel from their space warp.
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??

Daniel
The Doctor
2017-01-16 16:11:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
The robots from the SS Madame Pompadour were able to jury-rig
time travel from their space warp.
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Daniel
Depends on a robotic crew.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-19 09:47:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
The robots from the SS Madame Pompadour were able to jury-rig
time travel from their space warp.
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??

Daniel
The Doctor
2017-01-19 13:25:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
The robots from the SS Madame Pompadour were able to jury-rig
time travel from their space warp.
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??
Daniel
You heard me.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-21 12:37:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
The robots from the SS Madame Pompadour were able to jury-rig
time travel from their space warp.
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!

Daniel
The Doctor
2017-01-21 13:40:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who
universe;
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to
find a time
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
The robots from the SS Madame Pompadour were able to jury-rig
time travel from their space warp.
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!
Daniel
As I said Depends on a robotic crew.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-22 10:02:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!
As I said Depends on a robotic crew.
No!! I've not heard you say that at all, doctor!!

Daniel
The Doctor
2017-01-22 13:13:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!
As I said Depends on a robotic crew.
No!! I've not heard you say that at all, doctor!!
Daniel
Look above.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-24 11:48:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!
As I said Depends on a robotic crew.
No!! I've not heard you say that at all, doctor!!
Look above.
Ah!! So you didn't "say" anything, you "typed" it!!

And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have *some*
robotic crew??

Daniel
The Doctor
2017-01-24 13:12:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!
As I said Depends on a robotic crew.
No!! I've not heard you say that at all, doctor!!
Look above.
Ah!! So you didn't "say" anything, you "typed" it!!
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have *some*
robotic crew??
Daniel
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-26 10:47:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!
As I said Depends on a robotic crew.
No!! I've not heard you say that at all, doctor!!
Look above.
Ah!! So you didn't "say" anything, you "typed" it!!
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have *some*
robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!

Daniel
The Doctor
2017-01-26 13:15:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a
spaceship!).
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!
As I said Depends on a robotic crew.
No!! I've not heard you say that at all, doctor!!
Look above.
Ah!! So you didn't "say" anything, you "typed" it!!
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have *some*
robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
Post by Tim Bruening
Daniel
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Tim Bruening
2017-01-28 00:27:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a
spaceship!).
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!
As I said Depends on a robotic crew.
No!! I've not heard you say that at all, doctor!!
Look above.
Ah!! So you didn't "say" anything, you "typed" it!!
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have *some*
robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
How can a spaceship run on human body parts?
The Doctor
2017-01-28 00:30:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by *com (Dan Lanciani)
In article
On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 5:28:37 AM UTC-8, The
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by *com (Dan Lanciani)
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a
spaceship!).
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by *com (Dan Lanciani)
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!
As I said Depends on a robotic crew.
No!! I've not heard you say that at all, doctor!!
Look above.
Ah!! So you didn't "say" anything, you "typed" it!!
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have *some*
robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
How can a spaceship run on human body parts?
Ask those robots.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Tim Bruening
2017-01-28 02:38:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by *com (Dan Lanciani)
In article
On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 5:28:37 AM UTC-8, The
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by *com (Dan Lanciani)
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a
spaceship!).
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by *com (Dan Lanciani)
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!
As I said Depends on a robotic crew.
No!! I've not heard you say that at all, doctor!!
Look above.
Ah!! So you didn't "say" anything, you "typed" it!!
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have *some*
robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
How can a spaceship run on human body parts?
Ask those robots.
How do I contact them? Do they have a Facebook page?
The Doctor
2017-01-28 04:09:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by *com (Dan Lanciani)
In article
On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 5:28:37 AM UTC-8, The
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by *com (Dan Lanciani)
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a
spaceship!).
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by *com (Dan Lanciani)
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
What?? So anything "Titanic" is doomed to failure??
Depends on a robotic crew.
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!
As I said Depends on a robotic crew.
No!! I've not heard you say that at all, doctor!!
Look above.
Ah!! So you didn't "say" anything, you "typed" it!!
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have *some*
robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
How can a spaceship run on human body parts?
Ask those robots.
How do I contact them? Do they have a Facebook page?
Well ask Moffat.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-28 10:21:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have *some*
robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
How can a spaceship run on human body parts?
Ask those robots.
How do I contact them? Do they have a Facebook page?
Well ask Moffat.
Why?? You, doctor, are the one suggesting Tim should contact them!!

Daniel
The Doctor
2017-01-28 13:24:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have *some*
robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
How can a spaceship run on human body parts?
Ask those robots.
How do I contact them? Do they have a Facebook page?
Well ask Moffat.
Why?? You, doctor, are the one suggesting Tim should contact them!!
Daniel
Moffat wrote this up.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-29 10:47:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have
*some* robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
How can a spaceship run on human body parts?
Ask those robots.
How do I contact them? Do they have a Facebook page?
Well ask Moffat.
Why?? You, doctor, are the one suggesting Tim should contact them!!
Moffat wrote this up.
Wrote what "up"?? I cannot recall Moffat ever posting to this newsgroup,
doctor, let alone writing "up"!!

Daniel
Tim Bruening
2017-01-29 16:55:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have
*some* robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
How can a spaceship run on human body parts?
Ask those robots.
How do I contact them? Do they have a Facebook page?
Well ask Moffat.
Why?? You, doctor, are the one suggesting Tim should contact them!!
Moffat wrote this up.
Wrote what "up"?? I cannot recall Moffat ever posting to this newsgroup,
doctor, let alone writing "up"!!
He DID post to this newsgroup in 1995!
The Doctor
2017-01-30 01:46:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have
*some* robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
How can a spaceship run on human body parts?
Ask those robots.
How do I contact them? Do they have a Facebook page?
Well ask Moffat.
Why?? You, doctor, are the one suggesting Tim should contact them!!
Moffat wrote this up.
Wrote what "up"?? I cannot recall Moffat ever posting to this newsgroup,
doctor, let alone writing "up"!!
He DID post to this newsgroup in 1995!
And for a little while.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-30 08:25:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have
*some* robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
How can a spaceship run on human body parts?
Ask those robots.
How do I contact them? Do they have a Facebook page?
Well ask Moffat.
Why?? You, doctor, are the one suggesting Tim should contact them!!
Moffat wrote this up.
Wrote what "up"?? I cannot recall Moffat ever posting to this newsgroup,
doctor, let alone writing "up"!!
He DID post to this newsgroup in 1995!
And for a little while.
Golly Gosh!! A whopping twenty-odd years ago!! Gee!! That must have been
just before he started writing for Sherlock, wasn't it?? ;-)

Daniel
Tim Bruening
2017-01-30 14:06:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have
*some* robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
How can a spaceship run on human body parts?
Ask those robots.
How do I contact them? Do they have a Facebook page?
Well ask Moffat.
Why?? You, doctor, are the one suggesting Tim should contact them!!
Moffat wrote this up.
Wrote what "up"?? I cannot recall Moffat ever posting to this newsgroup,
doctor, let alone writing "up"!!
He DID post to this newsgroup in 1995!
And for a little while.
Golly Gosh!! A whopping twenty-odd years ago!! Gee!! That must have been
just before he started writing for Sherlock, wasn't it?? ;-)
The most recent Steven Moffat posts were in 1999.
The Doctor
2017-01-30 16:04:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"??
Did the SS
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have
*some* robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
How can a spaceship run on human body parts?
Ask those robots.
How do I contact them? Do they have a Facebook page?
Well ask Moffat.
Why?? You, doctor, are the one suggesting Tim should contact them!!
Moffat wrote this up.
Wrote what "up"?? I cannot recall Moffat ever posting to this newsgroup,
doctor, let alone writing "up"!!
He DID post to this newsgroup in 1995!
And for a little while.
Golly Gosh!! A whopping twenty-odd years ago!! Gee!! That must have been
just before he started writing for Sherlock, wasn't it?? ;-)
The most recent Steven Moffat posts were in 1999.
So 18 years? He could come back.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-02-02 10:19:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Well ask Moffat.
Why?? You, doctor, are the one suggesting Tim should contact them!!
Moffat wrote this up.
Wrote what "up"?? I cannot recall Moffat ever posting to this newsgroup,
doctor, let alone writing "up"!!
He DID post to this newsgroup in 1995!
And for a little while.
Golly Gosh!! A whopping twenty-odd years ago!! Gee!! That must have been
just before he started writing for Sherlock, wasn't it?? ;-)
The most recent Steven Moffat posts were in 1999.
So 18 years? He could come back.
But now that he's giving up his connection with Dr Who, why should he??

Daniel
The Doctor
2017-02-02 13:24:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Well ask Moffat.
Why?? You, doctor, are the one suggesting Tim should contact them!!
Moffat wrote this up.
Wrote what "up"?? I cannot recall Moffat ever posting to this newsgroup,
doctor, let alone writing "up"!!
He DID post to this newsgroup in 1995!
And for a little while.
Golly Gosh!! A whopping twenty-odd years ago!! Gee!! That must have been
just before he started writing for Sherlock, wasn't it?? ;-)
The most recent Steven Moffat posts were in 1999.
So 18 years? He could come back.
But now that he's giving up his connection with Dr Who, why should he??
Daniel
Is he?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
God is dead! Yahweh lives! Jesus his only begotten Son is the Risen Saviour!!
Tim Bruening
2017-03-20 15:36:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Well ask Moffat.
Why?? You, doctor, are the one suggesting Tim should contact them!!
Moffat wrote this up.
Wrote what "up"?? I cannot recall Moffat ever posting to this newsgroup,
doctor, let alone writing "up"!!
He DID post to this newsgroup in 1995!
And for a little while.
Golly Gosh!! A whopping twenty-odd years ago!! Gee!! That must have been
just before he started writing for Sherlock, wasn't it?? ;-)
The most recent Steven Moffat posts were in 1999.
So 18 years? He could come back.
But now that he's giving up his connection with Dr Who, why should he??
Daniel
Is he?
He is leaving his showrunner job at the end of this year. This would free him to post in this newsgroup!
The Doctor
2017-03-20 20:10:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Well ask Moffat.
Why?? You, doctor, are the one suggesting Tim should contact them!!
Moffat wrote this up.
Wrote what "up"?? I cannot recall Moffat ever posting to this
newsgroup,
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
doctor, let alone writing "up"!!
He DID post to this newsgroup in 1995!
And for a little while.
Golly Gosh!! A whopping twenty-odd years ago!! Gee!! That must have been
just before he started writing for Sherlock, wasn't it?? ;-)
The most recent Steven Moffat posts were in 1999.
So 18 years? He could come back.
But now that he's giving up his connection with Dr Who, why should he??
Daniel
Is he?
He is leaving his showrunner job at the end of this year. This would
free him to post in this newsgroup!
Possibly.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
God is dead! Yahweh lives! Jesus his only begotten Son is the Risen Saviour!!
Tim Bruening
2017-03-20 15:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
At the start, a mob of Ood come towards the Doctor and Rose in what looks to me in a menacing manner, saying "We Must Feed". The Doctor and Rose shy away. The Ood realize that they intended message isn't getting through, bang on their translator balls, and say "We must feed you". If the Ood weren't intending to harm the Doctor and Rose, why were they approaching the Doctor and Rose in a menacing manner?
The Doctor
2017-01-30 15:49:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"??
Did the SS
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have
*some* robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
How can a spaceship run on human body parts?
Ask those robots.
How do I contact them? Do they have a Facebook page?
Well ask Moffat.
Why?? You, doctor, are the one suggesting Tim should contact them!!
Moffat wrote this up.
Wrote what "up"?? I cannot recall Moffat ever posting to this newsgroup,
doctor, let alone writing "up"!!
He DID post to this newsgroup in 1995!
And for a little while.
Golly Gosh!! A whopping twenty-odd years ago!! Gee!! That must have been
just before he started writing for Sherlock, wasn't it?? ;-)
Daniel
4 years but he was barely noticed.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-28 10:19:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!
As I said Depends on a robotic crew.
No!! I've not heard you say that at all, doctor!!
Look above.
Ah!! So you didn't "say" anything, you "typed" it!!
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have *some*
robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
So the ships were made from bits of humans!! Find that hard to believe!!

Daniel
The Doctor
2017-01-28 13:24:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
What??
You heard me.
NO, doctor, I have NEVER, knowingly, heard you!!
As I said Depends on a robotic crew.
No!! I've not heard you say that at all, doctor!!
Look above.
Ah!! So you didn't "say" anything, you "typed" it!!
And how do we know that it "Depends on a robotic crew"?? Did the SS
Madame Pompadour even have a robotic crew?? Or did it just have *some*
robotic crew??
What did the psycho robotic crew do to the humans?
You're telling the story, doctor!
You forgot the robots made them into spare parts for the ships.
So the ships were made from bits of humans!! Find that hard to believe!!
Daniel
Only after the Robots when berseek.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Tim Bruening
2017-01-16 07:08:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
The robots from the SS Madame Pompadour were able to jury-rig
time travel from their space warp.
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
So the robots thought that the ship was a brain ship a la "The Ship Who Sang" by Anne McCaffrey?
The Doctor
2017-01-16 16:17:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
The robots from the SS Madame Pompadour were able to jury-rig
time travel from their space warp.
Why did they need her head?
Because they believe she is the ship!
What led to that belief? (She didn't look at all like a spaceship!).
SS Madame Pompadour is the main clue.
So the robots thought that the ship was a brain ship a la "The Ship Who
Sang" by Anne McCaffrey?
I would say yes.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
p***@aol.com
2006-11-19 04:46:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by p***@aol.com
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
I didn't know this; is this from an earlier series, or something from
the new shows I grayed out on?
I think it was in earlier series, but this year alone we've had robots
in a human-built ship using time travel in the 51st Century (The Girl
in the Fireplace), and Jack Harkness is from the 51st Century, where he
had a time travel-capable Chula warship and was a former time agent (so
either he'd adapted the warship or both humans and Chula had time
travel technology in that period).

Phil
Aaron Bergman
2006-11-18 17:11:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
Actually, that's not true. There are no stable orbits inside three times
the radius of the event horizon (in suitable coordinates).

Aaron
Tim Bruening
2006-11-18 19:27:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Aaron Bergman
Post by p***@aol.com
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
Actually, that's not true. There are no stable orbits inside three times
the radius of the event horizon (in suitable coordinates).
Due to tidal forces pullling the planet apart?
p***@aol.com
2006-11-19 12:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Aaron Bergman
Post by p***@aol.com
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
Actually, that's not true. There are no stable orbits inside three times
the radius of the event horizon (in suitable coordinates).
I wasn't aware of that figure, but in context it's something of a
technicality - the point remains that there's nothing remarkable about
a planet orbiting a black hole (and there's a known system with planets
orbiting a pulsar, which is the closest thing to a black hole without
being one) and it's jarring to have the Doctor, treated here as a
scientist, declare that it's 'impossible' that they be orbiting one
without knowing how far from the hole they are. This sort of thing is a
particular bugbear for me; since this is a series whose protagonist is
purportedly a scientist and which is aimed at children, I feel it ought
to make special efforts to be accurate as there's every chance its
target audience will take it as being authoritative. It needn't be as
precise as saying the planet's outside three radii of the event
horizon, but it should at least have acknowledged that there is such a
thing as an event horizon rather than having the hole grabbing solar
systems from across the universe to eat, as it's portrayed as doing
here.

On a related note, as a friend of mine has pointed out several times,
the Doctor is far too glib with his use of the word 'impossible' (which
scientists ought to be leery about using at the best of times) - in
fact this episode's script seems to rely largely on emphasising that
the situation the characters are in is 'impossible'. The Doctor seems
to use 'impossible' to mean 'I don't believe it' or 'highly
implausible' rather than what the word actually means.

Another concept he seems to struggle with a bit is 'bad'. For instance,
he ominously declaims 'bad doesn't cover it' when told they're in an
'impossible' geostationary orbit (and if the orbit's geostationary, why
do the graphics they look at onscreen show the planet whizzing around
the hole in a planetary orbit? *sigh*). Strictly speaking, of course,
he's right - being alive somewhere where they ought to be dead isn't
bad in any sense, it's actually quite good. We had something similar
with School Reunion earlier in the year, when we're told, after Rose
asks "Is that bad?" "Think how bad things could possibly be, then add
another suitcase of bad", which more accurately translates as "No, not
really. They're just another bunch of aliens".

Phil
Tim Bruening
2006-11-18 19:25:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an explanation for how
the planet was there. It was scientifically implausible/impossible, but I
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
Not so. Its a naked singularity!
*com (Dan Lanciani)
2006-11-19 05:51:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com (***@aol.com) writes:

| And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
| have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
| okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
| only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
| some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
| Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
| ship to take Rose home if need be.

Even if he can't find a ship and even if he believes that only Timelords
should be fiddling with time he should certainly be able to cobble together
a reasonable time machine with materials that he could assume to be available
in a space-faring age. Scarof (well, Kerensky really) managed it with 20'th
century resources and a little help from Romana in the form of a field
interface stabilizer. (Granted Scarof had manipulated humanity's history
to make the required level of technology available in the 20'th century,
but what's done is done...)

Dan Lanciani
***@danlan.*com
Tim Bruening
2016-09-22 02:02:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an explanation for how
the planet was there. It was scientifically implausible/impossible, but I
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
okay, this conversation happened before we knew the date (which was
only mentioned with Scooti's death), but the Doctor knows they're at
some point in the far future. He acts as though he thinks only Time
Lords can travel in time, but it should be easy enough to find a time
ship to take Rose home if need be.
Would the people on the planet be able to get a time ship to make a house call?
TB
2016-09-22 02:57:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by t***@dcn.davis.ca.us
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?), but as the build-up half of a two-parter
it did its job better than most, I liked the setting and even though
they're far from scary and kill people with electric yo-yos, I quite
like the Ood as well.
Is the planet actually INSIDE the event horizon?
If the Doctor, Rose, and the ship's crew manage to escape, I preidct
that they will discover that years passed by in the outside universe,
since time slows down near or inside a black hole.
Does years passing really matter to time travellers?
The years passing would matter to the ship's crew, who't travel in time.
Daniel60
2016-09-22 13:58:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TB
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by t***@dcn.davis.ca.us
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?), but as the build-up half of a two-parter
it did its job better than most, I liked the setting and even though
they're far from scary and kill people with electric yo-yos, I quite
like the Ood as well.
Is the planet actually INSIDE the event horizon?
If the Doctor, Rose, and the ship's crew manage to escape, I preidct
that they will discover that years passed by in the outside universe,
since time slows down near or inside a black hole.
Does years passing really matter to time travellers?
The years passing would matter to the ship's crew, who't travel in time.
No, Tim, 'cause The Doctor would just twiddle a few knobs and flick so
switches and the TARDIS would head off to whenever it wanted!!

Daniel
Tim Bruening
2016-09-22 18:45:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by TB
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by t***@dcn.davis.ca.us
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?), but as the build-up half of a two-parter
it did its job better than most, I liked the setting and even though
they're far from scary and kill people with electric yo-yos, I quite
like the Ood as well.
Is the planet actually INSIDE the event horizon?
If the Doctor, Rose, and the ship's crew manage to escape, I preidct
that they will discover that years passed by in the outside universe,
since time slows down near or inside a black hole.
Does years passing really matter to time travellers?
The years passing would matter to the ship's crew, who't travel in time.
No, Tim, 'cause The Doctor would just twiddle a few knobs and flick so
switches and the TARDIS would head off to whenever it wanted!!
I am typing about the ship's crew, to whom the passage of years WOULD matter, since they aren't time travelers!

Or are you suggesting that the TARDIS go back in time, and take the ship with it? (If it can haul an entire T-Rex through time, a spaceship should be a piece of cake!).
Daniel60
2016-09-23 11:17:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by TB
Post by *com (Dan Lanciani)
In article
Post by t***@dcn.davis.ca.us
Post by p***@aol.com
"The Impossible Planet" 11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks
so it's not 3.5). The characterisations were good if
somewhat stereotyped, though someone should tell the writer
that the characters who are going to die should be the ones
we're made to care about - the failure to develop Scooti
not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her
death lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad
(haven't any of them heard of an event horizon?), but as
the build-up half of a two-parter it did its job better
than most, I liked the setting and even though they're far
from scary and kill people with electric yo-yos, I quite
like the Ood as well.
Is the planet actually INSIDE the event horizon?
If the Doctor, Rose, and the ship's crew manage to escape, I
preidct that they will discover that years passed by in the
outside universe, since time slows down near or inside a
black hole.
Does years passing really matter to time travellers?
The years passing would matter to the ship's crew, who't travel in time.
No, Tim, 'cause The Doctor would just twiddle a few knobs and flick
so switches and the TARDIS would head off to whenever it wanted!!
I am typing about the ship's crew, to whom the passage of years WOULD
matter, since they aren't time travelers!
Or are you suggesting that the TARDIS go back in time, and take the
ship with it? (If it can haul an entire T-Rex through time, a
spaceship should be a piece of cake!).
No, I mis-read, Tim! When you mentioned "the ship's crew", I thought you
were talking about "the TARDIS' crew".

Oops!

Daniel
Tim Bruening
2017-01-15 04:03:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an explanation for how
the planet was there. It was scientifically implausible/impossible, but I
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
How are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's history?
The Doctor
2017-01-15 13:28:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an explanation for how
the planet was there. It was scientifically implausible/impossible, but I
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
How are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's history?
No time travel.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Tim Bruening
2017-01-15 17:13:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an explanation for how
the planet was there. It was scientifically implausible/impossible, but I
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
How are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's history?
No time travel.
But I read in this thread that humans had time travel long before the 44th millennium!
The Doctor
2017-01-15 23:57:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an
explanation for how
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
the planet was there. It was scientifically implausible/impossible, but I
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
How are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's history?
No time travel.
But I read in this thread that humans had time travel long before the 44th millennium!
That 43000 A.D.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-16 06:57:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an
explanation for how
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
the planet was there. It was scientifically implausible/impossible, but I
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
How are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's history?
No time travel.
But I read in this thread that humans had time travel long before the 44th millennium!
That 43000 A.D.
Yes, so how are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's
history?

Daniel
The Doctor
2017-01-16 16:10:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an
explanation for how
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
the planet was there. It was scientifically implausible/impossible, but I
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
How are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's history?
No time travel.
But I read in this thread that humans had time travel long before the 44th millennium!
That 43000 A.D.
Yes, so how are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's
history?
Daniel
Temporal prime Directive / Non - Interference.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Tim Bruening
2017-01-16 19:33:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an
explanation for how
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
the planet was there. It was scientifically implausible/impossible, but I
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
How are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's history?
No time travel.
But I read in this thread that humans had time travel long before the
44th millennium!
That 43000 A.D.
Yes, so how are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's
history?
Daniel
Temporal prime Directive / Non - Interference.
Enforced by Time Cops?
The Doctor
2017-01-17 01:35:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
On Saturday, November 18, 2006 at 3:08:03 AM UTC-8,
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks
so it's not
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are
going to die
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't
any of them
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an
explanation for how
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
the planet was there. It was scientifically
implausible/impossible, but I
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
How are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's history?
No time travel.
But I read in this thread that humans had time travel long before the
44th millennium!
That 43000 A.D.
Yes, so how are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's
history?
Daniel
Temporal prime Directive / Non - Interference.
Enforced by Time Cops?
Some must be around the place.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-19 09:46:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an
explanation for how
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
the planet was there. It was scientifically implausible/impossible, but I
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
How are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's history?
No time travel.
But I read in this thread that humans had time travel long before the
44th millennium!
That 43000 A.D.
Yes, so how are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's
history?
Temporal prime Directive / Non - Interference.
Garbage!! When has there ever been a Temporal prime Directive / Non -
Interference in Dr Who?? That's what the whole program is based upon!!

Daniel
The Doctor
2017-01-19 13:24:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so
it's not
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are
going to die
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't
any of them
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an
explanation for how
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
the planet was there. It was scientifically
implausible/impossible, but I
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
How are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's history?
No time travel.
But I read in this thread that humans had time travel long before the
44th millennium!
That 43000 A.D.
Yes, so how are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's
history?
Temporal prime Directive / Non - Interference.
Garbage!! When has there ever been a Temporal prime Directive / Non -
Interference in Dr Who?? That's what the whole program is based upon!!
Daniel
OH?! What about being on trial on Gallifrey?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-21 12:36:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so
it's not
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are
going to die
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't
any of them
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an
explanation for how
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
the planet was there. It was scientifically
implausible/impossible, but I
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event horizon,
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a black hole.
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel' extending in *the
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
How are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's history?
No time travel.
But I read in this thread that humans had time travel long before the
44th millennium!
That 43000 A.D.
Yes, so how are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's
history?
Temporal prime Directive / Non - Interference.
Garbage!! When has there ever been a Temporal prime Directive / Non -
Interference in Dr Who?? That's what the whole program is based upon!!
OH?! What about being on trial on Gallifrey?
What about it??

Daniel
The Doctor
2017-01-21 13:40:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
On Saturday, November 18, 2006 at 3:08:03 AM UTC-8,
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been
described as a
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so
it's not
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat
stereotyped, though
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are
going to die
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant
her death
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't
any of them
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
Post by p***@aol.com
heard of an event horizon?),
Note the title was The IMPOSSIBLE planet. There was an
explanation for how
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
the planet was there. It was scientifically
implausible/impossible, but I
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Beeblebear
guess that's why they call it Science Fiction
Actually, the problem is exactly the reverse - the characters were all
oohing and ahing and telling each other how 'impossible' it was that
the planet was there, while those of us with a bit of basic physics
background were scratching our heads thinking "Okay, the planet orbits
a black hole. What's remarkable about that?" Outside the event
horizon,
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
there's no problem at all with a planet orbiting close to a
black hole.
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
There could have been a throwaway comment about the planet being held
in orbit within the event horizon, which would be impossible
(especially with the puzzle of how a 'gravity funnel'
extending in *the
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Beeblebear
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@aol.com
opposite direction from the black hole* managed to 'cancel out' the
hole's gravity), but there wasn't, and in any case the planet was
apparently sufficiently far from the black hole that there were entire
solar systems between it and the black hole being pulled in (absurdly
quickly, no less). The hole is essentially depicted as not having an
event horizon at all, which is nonsense.
And by the way, what's the drama about Rose being 'trapped'? Humans
have time travel long before the 44th Millennium in the Who universe;
How are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's history?
No time travel.
But I read in this thread that humans had time travel long before the
44th millennium!
That 43000 A.D.
Yes, so how are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's
history?
Temporal prime Directive / Non - Interference.
Garbage!! When has there ever been a Temporal prime Directive / Non -
Interference in Dr Who?? That's what the whole program is based upon!!
OH?! What about being on trial on Gallifrey?
What about it??
Daniel
That is what he is on trial for.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Daniel60
2017-01-22 10:00:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
No time travel.
But I read in this thread that humans had time travel long before the
44th millennium!
That 43000 A.D.
Yes, so how are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's
history?
Temporal prime Directive / Non - Interference.
Garbage!! When has there ever been a Temporal prime Directive / Non -
Interference in Dr Who?? That's what the whole program is based upon!!
OH?! What about being on trial on Gallifrey?
What about it??
That is what he is on trial for.
For what??

Daniel
The Doctor
2017-01-22 13:13:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
No time travel.
But I read in this thread that humans had time travel long before the
44th millennium!
That 43000 A.D.
Yes, so how are human time travelers prevented from messing up Earth's
history?
Temporal prime Directive / Non - Interference.
Garbage!! When has there ever been a Temporal prime Directive / Non -
Interference in Dr Who?? That's what the whole program is based upon!!
OH?! What about being on trial on Gallifrey?
What about it??
That is what he is on trial for.
For what??
Daniel
Interfering in the affairs of others.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Tim Bruening
2006-11-18 19:22:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
I have read that Pluto was demoted on the technicallity that it had failed
to sweep Neptune out of its orbit. Since Neptune failed to sweep Pluto out
of its orbit, should we demote Neptune too?
p***@aol.com
2006-11-19 12:33:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
I have read that Pluto was demoted on the technicallity that it had failed
to sweep Neptune out of its orbit. Since Neptune failed to sweep Pluto out
of its orbit, should we demote Neptune too?
It wouldn't be the reason; the reason was that, with the discovery of a
Kuiper Belt Object (KBOs) larger than Pluto, now named Eris, a new,
consistent definition of a planet was needed that would either
encompass many more than the 9-10 recognised candidates or which would
have to exclude Pluto and leave the traditional eight. The solution was
to plump for the latter, which ultimately makes things less of a
headache. The result is that Pluto, Eris and Ceres (which was, for a
very brief period after its discovery in the 17th Century, a planet -
Pluto isn't the first time an object has been incorrectly designated a
planet and then demoted, it's just the most persistent and the only one
to have entered popular consciousness as a planet) are now consigned to
a new category of dwarf planets nicknamed 'plutons'.

However, the point you mentioned may have been an argument against
designating Pluto a planet on historical grounds, as it alludes to the
reason Pluto was adopted as a planet in the first place. Since it was
discovered, Neptune's erratic orbit was unexplained in the absence of a
modern understanding of gravitation and solar system formation, and so
at the time it was thought that the only way to explain its orbit was
the invoke a mystery 'Planet X' (yes, it should have been Planet IX,
but the X stands for a mystery rather than 'Planet 10'). Pluto was
ultimately the result of this search, but it was known as soon as it
was found that it couldn't be the hoped-for Planet X because it
couldn't have affected Neptune's orbit. Therefore, there are no valid
historical grounds for designating Pluto a planet.

Undeterred, for no very good reason people decided to call it a planet
anyway and, although new models of gravitation had made an extra planet
unnecessary to explain Neptune's orbit (and Mercury's - for a while
before Einstein, oddities in that planet's orbit had led to a search
for a mythical 'first planet' nicknamed Vulcan), the idea of a 'real'
Planet X (which this time actually would be the tenth planet) did the
rounds in science fiction for a while. It's come back recently among
serious astronomers, but not as a large object affecting Neptune's
orbit, and number 10 (well, 9 again) won't be anything special if it's
found. There was a New Scientist article recently suggesting that there
could well be Mars-sized KBOs, and possibly planet-sized objects
outside the Kuiper Belt, too far for us to detect at present but still
within the solar system, that a back-of-the-envelope calculation (or at
least a guess) suggests may number a dozen or more.

Anyway, with Bellerophon, Methuselah and the legion of so-far-unnamed
planets outside our solar system, there are more than enough planets to
go around without adding any more in our system. At this rate we'll be
in danger of running out of Greek and Roman deities - there are only a
couple left, with a lot of the asteroids named after them (the most
prominent
being Quirinus, the patron god of the city of Rome, the only major
Roman deity not represented by a planet, satellite or asteroid).

Phil
Patty Winter ()
2006-11-19 19:59:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Tim Bruening
I have read that Pluto was demoted on the technicallity that it had failed
to sweep Neptune out of its orbit. Since Neptune failed to sweep Pluto out
of its orbit, should we demote Neptune too?
It wouldn't be the reason;
It depends whether you're defining a "reason" as a motivation or a
criterion. Sweeping the orbit is indeed one of the new IAU *criteria*:

(1) A planet is a celestial body that
(a) is in orbit around the Sun,
(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome
that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round)
(c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
Post by p***@aol.com
the reason was that, with the discovery of a
Kuiper Belt Object (KBOs) larger than Pluto, now named Eris, a new,
consistent definition of a planet was needed that would either
encompass many more than the 9-10 recognised candidates or which would
have to exclude Pluto and leave the traditional eight. The solution was
to plump for the latter, which ultimately makes things less of a
headache.
Yes, that was the *motivation* for finding a way to exclude Pluto: they
realized that many other bodies should be considered planets if Pluto
were left in. But the *criteria* they developed for excluding Pluto should,
by rights, also exclude Neptune.
Post by p***@aol.com
it was known as soon as it
was found that it couldn't be the hoped-for Planet X because it
couldn't have affected Neptune's orbit.
Nonetheless, the recent IAU resolution doesn't say anything about
whether the nearby stuff has to *affect* a planet's orbit. It just
says that there shouldn't be anything left in the neighbo(u)rhood.
Granted, Neptune doesn't *share* an orbit with Pluto, but they
overlap, so clearly, Neptune has done a poor job of clearing the
area.


Patty
Brian Thorn
2006-11-19 21:43:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Patty Winter ()
Yes, that was the *motivation* for finding a way to exclude Pluto: they
realized that many other bodies should be considered planets if Pluto
were left in. But the *criteria* they developed for excluding Pluto should,
by rights, also exclude Neptune.
...and Jupiter, and Earth...

Brian
Stan Brown
2006-11-19 22:23:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
19 Nov 2006 19:59:19 GMT from <Patty Winter (patty1
Post by Patty Winter ()
Nonetheless, the recent IAU resolution doesn't say anything about
whether the nearby stuff has to *affect* a planet's orbit. It just
says that there shouldn't be anything left in the neighbo(u)rhood.
Granted, Neptune doesn't *share* an orbit with Pluto, but they
overlap, so clearly, Neptune has done a poor job of clearing the
area.
By that criterion, the earth isn't a planet either, since numerous
asteroids cross its orbit.

I think the "clears its orbit" criterion means only that no other
bodies share the same or nearly the same orbit. And even so, there
has to be an exception for the Trojan points, 60 degrees ahead and 60
degrees behind.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"You may be the Universe's butt puppet, but I'm its right-
hand fist of fate." -- /Wonderfalls/
TB
2016-03-15 05:46:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stan Brown
19 Nov 2006 19:59:19 GMT from <Patty Winter (patty1
Post by Patty Winter ()
Nonetheless, the recent IAU resolution doesn't say anything about
whether the nearby stuff has to *affect* a planet's orbit. It just
says that there shouldn't be anything left in the neighbo(u)rhood.
Granted, Neptune doesn't *share* an orbit with Pluto, but they
overlap, so clearly, Neptune has done a poor job of clearing the
area.
By that criterion, the earth isn't a planet either, since numerous
asteroids cross its orbit.
I think the "clears its orbit" criterion means only that no other
bodies share the same or nearly the same orbit. And even so, there
has to be an exception for the Trojan points, 60 degrees ahead and 60
degrees behind.
What bodies share Pluto's orbit or nearly Pluto's orbit?
The Last Doctor
2016-03-15 07:28:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TB
Post by Stan Brown
19 Nov 2006 19:59:19 GMT from <Patty Winter (patty1
Post by Patty Winter ()
Nonetheless, the recent IAU resolution doesn't say anything about
whether the nearby stuff has to *affect* a planet's orbit. It just
says that there shouldn't be anything left in the neighbo(u)rhood.
Granted, Neptune doesn't *share* an orbit with Pluto, but they
overlap, so clearly, Neptune has done a poor job of clearing the
area.
By that criterion, the earth isn't a planet either, since numerous
asteroids cross its orbit.
I think the "clears its orbit" criterion means only that no other
bodies share the same or nearly the same orbit. And even so, there
has to be an exception for the Trojan points, 60 degrees ahead and 60
degrees behind.
What bodies share Pluto's orbit or nearly Pluto's orbit?
Primarily Charon. Pluto and Charon orbit each other (the centre of gravity
is above the surface of both bodies). Charon isn't large enough to reach
hydrostatic equilibrium (ie it's not "round" enough) to be a minor planet
in its own right, but is technically not a moon.

In addition, the Pluto-Charon system does not control its own orbit -
Neptune is dominant and has forced Pluto, Charon and other objects in that
orbit into a resonant orbit.

Pluto also passes through the Kuiper belt and has not cleared out all of
its orbit.

Nor have any other celestial bodies, but it's a matter of proportion.

To put this into perspective: Excluding the Moon (which is a true satellite
as the centre of gravity that the Earth and Moon revolve about lies within
the body of Earth), Earth's mass is 1.7 million times the mass of all other
objects in its orbit.

Pluto forms maybe 7% of the mass of other objects in its orbit.

If we exclude the "orbital clearance" criterion, we don't just get back to
9 planets, or even 12, but instead wind up with over 50, possibly over 100,
planets in the solar system. If we were to count satellites too, we'd add
another 15 (including the Moon).

That's why astronomers wanted to set up a complex definition and
unfortunately Pluto wound up on the small side of it.

Yes, it's fuzzy. It's fuzzy at the other end too: although it doesn't
affect any bodies in the solar system, the boundary between large gas
giants and brown dwarf is defined by self sustaining deuterium fusion but
that's not entirely mass dependent so some objects at around 11 Jupiter
masses could be brown dwarfs while others at 13-14 Jupiters aren't.
--
"I am and always will be the optimist.
The hoper of far-flung hopes and the dreamer of improbable dreams."
The Doctor
2016-03-15 15:41:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TB
Post by Stan Brown
19 Nov 2006 19:59:19 GMT from <Patty Winter (patty1
Post by Patty Winter ()
Nonetheless, the recent IAU resolution doesn't say anything about
whether the nearby stuff has to *affect* a planet's orbit. It just
says that there shouldn't be anything left in the neighbo(u)rhood.
Granted, Neptune doesn't *share* an orbit with Pluto, but they
overlap, so clearly, Neptune has done a poor job of clearing the
area.
By that criterion, the earth isn't a planet either, since numerous
asteroids cross its orbit.
I think the "clears its orbit" criterion means only that no other
bodies share the same or nearly the same orbit. And even so, there
has to be an exception for the Trojan points, 60 degrees ahead and 60
degrees behind.
What bodies share Pluto's orbit or nearly Pluto's orbit?
Charon.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Manitoba and Saskatchewan! Save your provinces in April! Vote Liberal!!
Tim Bruening
2006-12-03 02:30:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
I have read that Pluto was demoted on the technicallity that it had failed
to sweep Neptune out of its orbit. Since Neptune failed to sweep Pluto out
of its orbit, should we demote Neptune too?
It wouldn't be the reason; the reason was that, with the discovery of a
Kuiper Belt Object (KBOs) larger than Pluto, now named Eris, a new,
consistent definition of a planet was needed that would either
encompass many more than the 9-10 recognised candidates or which would
have to exclude Pluto and leave the traditional eight. The solution was
to plump for the latter, which ultimately makes things less of a
headache. The result is that Pluto, Eris and Ceres (which was, for a
very brief period after its discovery in the 17th Century, a planet -
Pluto isn't the first time an object has been incorrectly designated a
planet and then demoted, it's just the most persistent and the only one
to have entered popular consciousness as a planet) are now consigned to
a new category of dwarf planets nicknamed 'plutons'.
However, the point you mentioned may have been an argument against
designating Pluto a planet on historical grounds, as it alludes to the
reason Pluto was adopted as a planet in the first place. Since it was
discovered, Neptune's erratic orbit was unexplained in the absence of a
modern understanding of gravitation and solar system formation, and so
at the time it was thought that the only way to explain its orbit was
the invoke a mystery 'Planet X' (yes, it should have been Planet IX,
but the X stands for a mystery rather than 'Planet 10'). Pluto was
ultimately the result of this search, but it was known as soon as it
was found that it couldn't be the hoped-for Planet X because it
couldn't have affected Neptune's orbit. Therefore, there are no valid
historical grounds for designating Pluto a planet.
Undeterred, for no very good reason people decided to call it a planet
anyway and, although new models of gravitation had made an extra planet
unnecessary to explain Neptune's orbit (and Mercury's - for a while
before Einstein, oddities in that planet's orbit had led to a search
for a mythical 'first planet' nicknamed Vulcan), the idea of a 'real'
Planet X (which this time actually would be the tenth planet) did the
rounds in science fiction for a while. It's come back recently among
serious astronomers, but not as a large object affecting Neptune's
orbit, and number 10 (well, 9 again) won't be anything special if it's
found. There was a New Scientist article recently suggesting that there
could well be Mars-sized KBOs, and possibly planet-sized objects
outside the Kuiper Belt, too far for us to detect at present but still
within the solar system, that a back-of-the-envelope calculation (or at
least a guess) suggests may number a dozen or more.
Anyway, with Bellerophon, Methuselah and the legion of so-far-unnamed
planets outside our solar system, there are more than enough planets to
go around without adding any more in our system. At this rate we'll be
in danger of running out of Greek and Roman deities - there are only a
couple left, with a lot of the asteroids named after them (the most
prominent
being Quirinus, the patron god of the city of Rome, the only major
Roman deity not represented by a planet, satellite or asteroid).
Why not name a planet after Julius Caesar?
Tim Bruening
2007-12-02 23:47:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
I have read that Pluto was demoted on the technicallity that it had failed
to sweep Neptune out of its orbit. Since Neptune failed to sweep Pluto out
of its orbit, should we demote Neptune too?
It wouldn't be the reason; the reason was that, with the discovery of a
Kuiper Belt Object (KBOs) larger than Pluto, now named Eris, a new,
consistent definition of a planet was needed that would either
encompass many more than the 9-10 recognised candidates or which would
have to exclude Pluto and leave the traditional eight. The solution was
to plump for the latter, which ultimately makes things less of a
headache. The result is that Pluto, Eris and Ceres (which was, for a
very brief period after its discovery in the 17th Century, a planet -
Pluto isn't the first time an object has been incorrectly designated a
planet and then demoted, it's just the most persistent and the only one
to have entered popular consciousness as a planet) are now consigned to
a new category of dwarf planets nicknamed 'plutons'.
However, the point you mentioned may have been an argument against
designating Pluto a planet on historical grounds, as it alludes to the
reason Pluto was adopted as a planet in the first place. Since it was
discovered, Neptune's erratic orbit was unexplained in the absence of a
modern understanding of gravitation and solar system formation, and so
at the time it was thought that the only way to explain its orbit was
the invoke a mystery 'Planet X' (yes, it should have been Planet IX,
but the X stands for a mystery rather than 'Planet 10'). Pluto was
ultimately the result of this search, but it was known as soon as it
was found that it couldn't be the hoped-for Planet X because it
couldn't have affected Neptune's orbit. Therefore, there are no valid
historical grounds for designating Pluto a planet.
Undeterred, for no very good reason people decided to call it a planet
anyway and, although new models of gravitation had made an extra planet
unnecessary to explain Neptune's orbit (and Mercury's - for a while
before Einstein, oddities in that planet's orbit had led to a search
for a mythical 'first planet' nicknamed Vulcan), the idea of a 'real'
Planet X (which this time actually would be the tenth planet) did the
rounds in science fiction for a while. It's come back recently among
serious astronomers, but not as a large object affecting Neptune's
orbit, and number 10 (well, 9 again) won't be anything special if it's
found. There was a New Scientist article recently suggesting that there
could well be Mars-sized KBOs, and possibly planet-sized objects
outside the Kuiper Belt, too far for us to detect at present but still
within the solar system, that a back-of-the-envelope calculation (or at
least a guess) suggests may number a dozen or more.
Anyway, with Bellerophon, Methuselah and the legion of so-far-unnamed
planets outside our solar system, there are more than enough planets to
go around without adding any more in our system. At this rate we'll be
in danger of running out of Greek and Roman deities - there are only a
couple left, with a lot of the asteroids named after them (the most
prominent
being Quirinus, the patron god of the city of Rome, the only major
Roman deity not represented by a planet, satellite or asteroid).
Why not name a planet after Julius Caesar?
Tim Bruening
2008-12-02 00:55:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
I have read that Pluto was demoted on the technicallity that it had failed
to sweep Neptune out of its orbit. Since Neptune failed to sweep Pluto out
of its orbit, should we demote Neptune too?
It wouldn't be the reason; the reason was that, with the discovery of a
Kuiper Belt Object (KBOs) larger than Pluto, now named Eris, a new,
consistent definition of a planet was needed that would either
encompass many more than the 9-10 recognised candidates or which would
have to exclude Pluto and leave the traditional eight. The solution was
to plump for the latter, which ultimately makes things less of a
headache. The result is that Pluto, Eris and Ceres (which was, for a
very brief period after its discovery in the 17th Century, a planet -
Pluto isn't the first time an object has been incorrectly designated a
planet and then demoted, it's just the most persistent and the only one
to have entered popular consciousness as a planet) are now consigned to
a new category of dwarf planets nicknamed 'plutons'.
However, the point you mentioned may have been an argument against
designating Pluto a planet on historical grounds, as it alludes to the
reason Pluto was adopted as a planet in the first place. Since it was
discovered, Neptune's erratic orbit was unexplained in the absence of a
modern understanding of gravitation and solar system formation, and so
at the time it was thought that the only way to explain its orbit was
the invoke a mystery 'Planet X' (yes, it should have been Planet IX,
but the X stands for a mystery rather than 'Planet 10'). Pluto was
ultimately the result of this search, but it was known as soon as it
was found that it couldn't be the hoped-for Planet X because it
couldn't have affected Neptune's orbit. Therefore, there are no valid
historical grounds for designating Pluto a planet.
Undeterred, for no very good reason people decided to call it a planet
anyway and, although new models of gravitation had made an extra planet
unnecessary to explain Neptune's orbit (and Mercury's - for a while
before Einstein, oddities in that planet's orbit had led to a search
for a mythical 'first planet' nicknamed Vulcan), the idea of a 'real'
Planet X (which this time actually would be the tenth planet) did the
rounds in science fiction for a while. It's come back recently among
serious astronomers, but not as a large object affecting Neptune's
orbit, and number 10 (well, 9 again) won't be anything special if it's
found. There was a New Scientist article recently suggesting that there
could well be Mars-sized KBOs, and possibly planet-sized objects
outside the Kuiper Belt, too far for us to detect at present but still
within the solar system, that a back-of-the-envelope calculation (or at
least a guess) suggests may number a dozen or more.
Anyway, with Bellerophon, Methuselah and the legion of so-far-unnamed
planets outside our solar system, there are more than enough planets to
go around without adding any more in our system. At this rate we'll be
in danger of running out of Greek and Roman deities - there are only a
couple left, with a lot of the asteroids named after them (the most
prominent
being Quirinus, the patron god of the city of Rome, the only major
Roman deity not represented by a planet, satellite or asteroid).
Why not name a planet after Julius Caesar?
DJensen
2008-12-02 01:50:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Why not name a planet after Julius Caesar?
Why not trim your quotes to the relevant lines if you only have 1 line
to add?

Why not start a new thread instead of reviving one that is two years old?

Why not crosspost to only the most relevant groups? (mn.humor removed)
--
DJensen
pv+ (PV)
2008-12-02 15:57:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DJensen
Post by Tim Bruening
Why not name a planet after Julius Caesar?
Why not trim your quotes to the relevant lines if you only have 1 line
to add?
Tim is an anorak-wearing freakball. He's never going to change anything
he's doing. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
DJensen
2008-12-02 17:41:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by DJensen
Post by Tim Bruening
Why not name a planet after Julius Caesar?
Why not trim your quotes to the relevant lines if you only have 1 line
to add?
Tim is an anorak-wearing freakball. He's never going to change anything
he's doing. *
I know, but I have to try...
--
DJensen
TB
2014-08-19 06:22:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Ahem. Ah, the episode? 3/5 (because I don't give half marks so it's not
3.5). The characterisations were good if somewhat stereotyped, though
someone should tell the writer that the characters who are going to die
should be the ones we're made to care about - the failure to develop
Scooti not only made it clear she was a redshirt, but meant her death
lacked any impact. The science was appallingly bad (haven't any of them
heard of an event horizon?), but as the build-up half of a two-parter
it did its job better than most, I liked the setting and even though
they're far from scary and kill people with electric yo-yos, I quite
like the Ood as well.
At the start, a bunch of Ood advance towards the Doctor and Rose saying "We must feed". One of them then taps its translator ball and says "We must feed you". If the Ood intended no harm to the Doctor and Rose, why did they advance towards them in such a menacing manner?

The planet is near a black hole. Is time slowed on that planet?
Post by p***@aol.com
Phil
Tim Bruening
2017-03-20 15:49:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Should be the other way round - Pluto's original designation was
responsible for messing up a previously fairly clean definition of a
planet at a time when it was already suspected there could be
planetismals beyond Neptune. It should never have been described as a
planet, and there wouldn't have been any fuss 70 years later.
Astronomers had greatly overestimated Pluto's size. They had started looking for Pluto in the first place because Neptune and Uranus were off course! When they found it, they assumed that Pluto had enough mass to account for Neptune and Uranus being off course! If it did, it would still qualify for planet hood!
Teh Wraith O Smeg
2006-11-18 08:43:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
-George
Ha ha!

5 stars for me too. This... was Doctor Who.

-Wraith-
David B
2006-11-18 08:47:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
-George
4.33. Dang, thanks for killing off the hottie in part one. Bummer.
Teh Wraith O Smeg
2006-11-18 08:56:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David B
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
-George
4.33. Dang, thanks for killing off the hottie in part one. Bummer.
Yeah - that really SUCKED.

Oh dear.

Wait... That's happened before in this series. Often in fact.

:(

-Wraith-
Tim Bruening
2006-11-18 19:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Is the IAU really that incompetant at the telescope?

Telescope: Mouth wash at a great distance.
nemo
2006-11-19 01:14:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
Is the IAU really that incompetant at the telescope?
Telescope: Mouth wash at a great distance.
Observatory: Where people keep an eye on David Cameron from.

When they try to look intense, some people look as if they're in pain. This
man is one of them!

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=david.cameron.page
Tim Bruening
2006-11-18 19:30:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by George Avalos
"The Impossible Planet"
11-17-06 Dr. Who
5 stars (Clyde Tombaugh)
0-1 stars (International Astronomical Union)
-George
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

In "The Creature In The Pit", a creature from a pit neutralized the
gravity of a neutron star by wrapping it in aluminum webbing. Could
that work with the black hole?
Loading...