Howling:If the doctor never existed...

when the doctor was errased in the big bang (tbb), how could there still be a universe for amy to live in to remember the doctor back into existance, since if he didn't timelock the last great time war (lgtw) then rassilon would have destroyed the universe, amoung other things the doctor will never have saved the universe from? Imamadmad talk to me 06:43, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Same reason Amy can still exist even though her parents never existed-when the cracks erase somebody, they don't erase that person's impact on the universe. If it did, then the Time Lords destroying the universe wouldn't be a huge problem. Look at Turn Left and see what the effect is on one planet, when the Doctor's only been dead for two seasons. Now, imagine if he was never born. His impact throughout history remained intact, even though he never existed. Just how that works is anybody's guess.Icecreamdif talk to me 06:52, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

It's arguable that, if the cracks had erased the Doctor's impact on the universe, they'd have erased themselves. Without the Doctor, no Doctor's TARDIS to explode, therefore no cracks caused by the explosion -- and, also, the universe wouldn't have been destroyed by the explosion. --89.240.241.19 14:08, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

What Doctor's impact? There have always been cracks in space. Boblipton talk to me 15:04, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

No there haven't. They only showed up in season 5. They were caused by the TARDIS explosion. The cracks may not have existed without the Doctor's impact, but the universe would have been destroyed by the reality bomb, or Rassilon, or whatever was supposed to be happening in Logopolis, and the Earth would have been destroyed about a thousand times. Still, we know that the cracks do not erase people's impact on the universe, because Amy still exists without her parents, because the Byzantium still crashed without the Angels, and because the clerics weren't replaced with other clerics when they went through the cracks.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:34, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Icecreamdif: All correct. Without the Doctor's impact, the universe would have been destroyed by something else, but not by the cracks. The (limited) point I was making above was that the cracks couldn't erase the Doctor's impact without causing a paradox, because they were part of his impact. If they'd erased the impact of those whose existence they erased, they couldn't have erased the Doctor at all. --2.101.58.9 (formerly 89.240.241.19) 21:22, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

And my point is what Doctor? He never existed. Just because we haven't figured out how all these things happened doesn't mean they don't have a logical explanation. Given any set of facts you can come up with a logical system to explain them. Boblipton talk to me 01:46, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

So then where did Amy come from? What caused the Byzantium to crash? Why was Amy left alone with no clerics guarding her? These things don't have logical explanations, because there cause was ripped out of existance. The effect of these causes, however, was not removed. After the explosion, the universe seems to have given up on logic altogether, with all the countless paradoxes involved in the ever shrinking history. If Earth is the only thing in the universe, then where did it come from? Why build a museum if there's nothing to put in it. If little Amelia never existed, then where did Amy come from. We know how these things happenned-they happenned due to the effects of people and events that never existed. This is very paradoxical, and it leaves open a lot of questions, such as what would happen if, pre Big Bang 2, the Doctor travelled to the date of Amy's birth? Would she just magically appear out of nowhere? When the cracks are involved, there is no logic behind anything.Icecreamdif talk to me 06:15, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

There would be a universe in which some children exist without ever having had parents. There wouldn't be many of them, likely, but they would exist. People would debate whether spontaneously generated children was proof that God exists, laws would be passed to deal with the legal issues of citizenship and guardianship and Cyril Burt would produce enormous numbers of studies about their development which fifty years later would turn out to be bogus. Boblipton talk to me 12:38, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

Not really. History doesn't change when somebody is erased, except for the obvious effect of removing that person, so there wouldn't be a new history where people had always wondered where it came from. Just look at Amy. It didn't even occur to her that it was weird that she didn't have parents until the Doctor pointed it out. We haven't seen much of her aunt Sharon, but it doesn't seem like she was concerned about the fact that she had a niece but didn't have any siblings. We know that Amy was sent to several psychiatrists, and none of them seem to have noticed that Amy somehow didn't have any parents. Apparently one of the effects of the cracks is that people don't notice these obvious indescrepencies. Icecreamdif talk to me 19:08, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

It goes beyond not noticing the discrepancies. To judge from Amy's conversation with the last surviving cleric in the forest on the Byzantium, they resist having the oddities pointed out to them. Aunt Sharon's reaction (in the dying universe) to Amelia's painting of stars wasn't to shrug it off as a child's imagination; she was seriously worried by it and acted as if a belief in stars were somehow harmful -- she was, in fact, actively hostile to the idea. --89.241.66.33 23:46, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

Well Aunt Sharon's reaction may not be a reaction to the cracks. She sent Amelia to a few therapists because of her "imaginary friend", but the Doctor was never sucked into a crack. Aunt Sharon is worried in general about Amelia's overactive imagination, and adding to that the fact that star believers were considered to be angry cultists, you can understand why Aunt Sharon was worrried even without intervention from the cracks. You are right about Amy's conversation with the clerics though. They do resist having information poined out to them.Icecreamdif talk to me 01:25, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

"star believers were considered to be angry cultists": Exactly so. Why? The point is that it wasn't only Aunt Sharon, it was general. Believers in (say) the Flower Faries are regarded with pity/derision but not with hostility, so why were believers in stars regarded with hostility? My guess (and it is only a guess) is that talk of stars made most people slightly uncomfortable -- they didn't want to go there, just as the clerics didn't want to go where Amy's information would have led them. --89.241.77.97 21:24, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I think about things like how Amy can still exist without parents, how the Byzantium can still crash, how the Doctor still avoided being shot by the Silurian at the end of THE/CB, the simplest explanation to me is that everything absorbed by the Cracks always exists UP UNTIL THE MOMENT A CRACK APPEARS AND EATS IT; the sequence of events prior to that moment is unchanged, as is evident from stuff like Amy's continued existence, etc. A lot of people seem to think that once eaten by the Crack, things LITERALLY never existed at any point in the timeline, but that would be like trying to build a house from the roof downwards - it just doesn't work, and doesn't make any sense. If that is the case, then you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to make the current scenario consistent with how it was before the Cracks showed up, which IMO makes it even more convoluted. Of course, there are still things like the Doctor specifically saying that every star will supernova at every moment in history if the TARDIS blows up in TPO, but maybe he just meant every moment in history in the future of where and when he and the Alliance currently were in that episode....maybe, I don't know. Why do people forget the things absorbed by the Crack afterwards? I don't know; perhaps it's linked somehow to the Silent's natural ability to cloud people's memories of them when they're not directly observing them, or perhaps it's just how the Cracks work. I realise my ideas aren't particularly popular, and no doubt a number of people will probably poo-poo them. But I'm a naturally logical person, and so like things to have logical explanations. Besides, it's inconsistent with how paradoxes work elsewhere in the mythos: When Rose Tyler saves her father's life in FD and distorts the timestream, the Reapers manifest to sterilise the breakdown. And when River Song doesn't kill the Doctor when she's supposed to in TWORS, all of history breaks down into a chaotic jumble. Thanks for reading. 82.2.136.93 15:08, November 5, 2011 (UTC) That's because it was stated, repeatedly, that things that were swallowed by the cracks never existed. We even see directly this is the case in The Big Bang, remember the cracks are pre/after-shock to the TARDIS exploding, and at the moment it does explode it erases most of the universe from ever existing like the cracks did it was the source of the cracks. Also I've mentioned before comparing the workings of the cracks to other paradoxes in the series is mostly useless because you have to look at circumstances: When Rose summoned the Reapers that was because of a simple paradox and the universe being slightly damaged, like cutting a finger. When the TARDIS exploded it was more like being hit by a truck, the universe was being blown away, all of it, regardless of position on the timeline because everything ever was ceasing to have ever existed in the first place. This is how we know the cracks do what it is said they do because they are part of that explosion. The Light6 talk to me 02:35, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * "A lot of people seem to think that once eaten by the Crack, things LITERALLY never existed at any point in the timeline"


 * But then you have to jump through hoops to explain how, if the Weeping Angels never existed, the Byzantium still crashed. How the Doctor survived getting shot at if Rory never existed. If Amy's parents never existed, where did Amy come from? If the Cyberarmy in AOG/DD never existed (as can be inferred from recent episodes), how did Torchwood 1 still fall? If the Dalek army in TSE/JE never existed, how did Harriet Jones die, and how did Donna end up being half-Time Lord? Etc, etc. 82.2.136.93 10:58, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you do, but those are the same loops you have to jump through to explain how anything in The Big Bang happened. Remember after the TARDIS exploded nothing had ever happened ever, except for the rapidly erasing history of Earth. If no stars ever existed, how did all the Hydrogen become the heavier atoms needed to form earth and the life that in habits it? Many alien races over the history of the show have been shown to have important parts in the history of earth and humanity, how was humanity still close to where it was in The Big Bang if none of those races ever existed? Here's the thing, as appealing as it is try to hop around the issue to avoid the hoops, the fact is that they are there and the only way to explain it is to hop through those hoops. The Light6 talk to me 11:45, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think what 82 is trying to argue is that the stars and hydrogen and everything else still existed before 101 CE, but it was after that point that every moment in history ceased to exist. I suppose that could explain where the legends of stars came from, but that theory also goes against every line of dialogue that has ever been utterred about the cracks. For one thing, that would mean that the Doctor co;uld use his vortex manipulator to travel to the year 100, and everything would be fine. THe implication of the episode was clearly that there was no universe anywhere or anywhen. The Doctor always says that people will have never existed, so when people are sucked up by the cracks they never existed. Simple as that.Icecreamdif talk to me 19:17, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well in that case, when it comes to stuff like Amy's continued existence without ever having had any parents, the Byzantium still crashing, the existence of CyberLisa in TW Cyberwoman, and what killed Harriet Jones, etc, etc....there is no rational explanation. They just happen, even though they make absolutely no sense as the things which cause them never exist. It just bugs me. 82.2.136.93 16:58, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

It just bugs a lot of people. The existence of this discussion is evidence of that! --2.101.57.89 22:21, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

It bugs me that I don't understand everything about everything. It makes me feel less than omniscient. But I'm starting to come to terms with it. Boblipton talk to me 22:32, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

It's probably beyond human understanding. None of us have the same natural understanding of time as the Time Lords.Icecreamdif talk to me 22:55, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

There's no way to rationalise what happens with the Cracks because the writers didn't really think that far ahead when they first came up with the concept. They just thought it sounded cool, and so did it. They probably didn't reckon on people such as myself noticing the inherant flaws in their storylines. As a result, we have a totally stupid concept that cannot be resolved. 194.168.208.42 15:30, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

194.168.208.42: It must be expensive having to have doorways widened so you can get your head through them. --78.146.182.86 22:33, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Well, first let's ignore the flaws within Series 4, since the entire series 4 is showing time in the process of being erased and the reprecussions/reactions have not gone in effect. Now the question is things like Byzantium and Cybermen invasions, we know that Byzantium still crashed but we don't know if the weeping angels were still erased in the new timeline, and we don't know if the Cybermen invasions are still erased either. I would be hesitant to say that there are flaws but more like we are uncertain about what happened and what didn't. --222.166.181.35 23:38, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

i agree that the timey wimeyness of the cracks might not have been thought about as much as we would have liked, but they suited the narative purpose at the time and i doubt the writers were expecting us fans to analyse them as much as we have. however, i dissagree with 194 that "They just thought it sounded cool, and so did it". they put the cracks in to suit a specific narative purpose: to return modern day earth in the whoniverse to a state in which it is more like modern day earth in our universe, as well as provide a theme to arch through the series similar to bad wolf, torchwood and mr saxon, only less subtle. the aim was well thought out, only the path to get to that aim could have been better thought through and/or explained better. however, now the writers are facing the consequences of that badly defined path with us posing questons like that which is the topic of our conversation. so, basically, i think the cracks were ok at the time, but now that the confusion has been revealed, the writers should include something to further explain and clarify the way and extent of the way the cracks erase objects or events from time itself while leaving there consequences. Imamadmad talk to me 23:57, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Imamadmad. 82.2.136.93 10:57, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

So do I -- and since the writers have been consistent about the effects of the cracks (consequences persist, etc.), they only have one set of effects to explain. --89.240.248.158 13:42, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

The Angels in TTOA/F&S were still erased, otherwise they would've killed the Doctor, Amy and River. Honestly, the whole thing is a monstrous pile of nonsense. Trying to get rid of all those alien attacks from Series 1 to 4 like this was a bad idea, because too many stories from those series were dependant on them. Without the Racnoss, how did Donna meet the Doctor? Without the Judoon, how did Martha meet the Doctor? Without the Cybermen, how did Rose get trapped in a parallel universe and Ianto's girlfriend Lisa get Cyberised? Without the Daleks, how did Donna become half-Time Lord and how did Mickey end up back on his own Earth? If the best explanation the writers can come up with is "Consequences still remain", I'm sorry, but that's a pretty poor explanation. 82.2.136.93 10:48, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

82.2.136.93, 'If the best explanation the writers can come up with is "Consequences still remain", I'm sorry, but that's a pretty poor explanation': It would be a poor explanation if it were an explanation but it isn't -- from an in-universe point of view, it's an effect that has not (yet) been explained. No definitive full explanation has been given, so far. Not too long ago, the notion that electrons (say) could behave sometimes as particles and sometimes as waves was regarded as "a monstrous pile of nonsense". Despite that, the machines we're using to conduct this discussion only work because the damned things do behave that way! I grant you that the writers have given themselves a difficult task in devising a satisfactory full explanation of the phenomena they've presented to us and I hope that the eventual explanation will (a) be devised with rather less delay than quantum theory was and (b) be somewhat easier to understand. Nevertheless, you ought to bear in mind that "I don't understand how it can be that way" is not the same as "It cannot be that way". If you dislike the situation the writers have created, that's fair enough -- and you're far from alone in disliking it. Please try, though, not to confuse a description of what happens, which "consequences still remain" is, with an explanation of what happens, which "consequences still remain" is not and is not intended to be. --78.146.181.237 14:30, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Boblipton talk to me 14:39, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with most people here and think that Steven Moffat is terrible with this new time-can-be-rewritten system he created. This is most evidenced in A Christmas Carol which I think makes no sense whatsoever seeing how Moffat made it explicit that the Doctor made Kazran the bitter man he is yet also showing a version of Kazran without the history with the Doctor also being the bitter man he is.

However, I believe a plausible explanation for the original question -- and I doubt it is the intention of Moffat -- is that a timeline is a tightly knitted system with each point building on another. Let's call the pre-Big Bang timeline Pt and the post-Big Bang timeline Pst. Assume the Pt is deleted and erased completely by the cracks. A point, Amy Pond, from Pt is copied or moved to Pst, and because of the existence of Amy Pond on Pst, the people associated with this state of Amy Pond must also exist on Pst, thus we have her parents and Rory and other people who shaped her and in turn, the people who shaped these people, and eventually the formation of Earth and Racnoss, and the other aliens associated with Racnoss and so on and so forth, and also the consequences of these, but the catch is only those that are related to the existence would be a part of the timeline, and certain details from Pt may be missed without affecting Pst. For whatever odd reason, the Doctor, which is so crucial to Amy's development since childhood, is not crucial in the timeline, however if Amy remembers him (not imagines him, but remembers him) then his existence would be undeniable.

The problem is of course why the Doctor is not crucial to Pst. There are some possible clues which does not fully resolve the issue:


 * 1) most of the adventures with Amy can be effectively nullified because the time from the Doctor's third visit to Amy's wedding is either one night or even shorter or even none. elimination of the Doctor's third visit has very little effect on Amy's timeline


 * 1) The Doctor appeared to Amy after the cracks appear and Amy's parents are erased and thus the Doctor's existence contradicts with her parents' existence. So if Amy doesn't remember or doesn't believe to remember the Doctor, a natural uncontradicting timeline would exclude him.
 * 2) To Amy, everything concerning the cracks have to do with the Doctor, thus no cracks, no Doctor.

{C {C}--222.166.181.192 19:31, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I've always felt that chucking out so many elements of the past few series is deteriorating to the characters' backstories. It's like having a 100 page book and then ripping out the first 50 pages, and then reading it expecting everything to make sense. It simply doesn't work. 82.2.136.93 19:16, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

"It would be a poor explanation if it were an explanation but is isn't - it's an effect that has not (yet) been explained." Somehow, I can't see the writers explaining this conundrum any time in the foreseeable future, can you? It's most likely going to remain a huge narrative nightmare. 82.2.136.93 19:21, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, 82, that's just how Roger Zelazny turned out all those classic novellas. Left all the backstory alone and told what was happening at the moment. Boblipton talk to me 19:25, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Except they haven't left the backstories alone. They're ripped big chunks of them out so that their lives don't make sense. Now Ianto's girlfriend is Cyberised for no reason, Harriet Jones dies for no reason, and the Byzantium crashed for no reason. This is not good story-telling. 82.2.136.93 22:03, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, 82, these things didn't happen for no reason. We, the audience, were told what the reasons were. We have also been told why, to some characters within the story, these things might seem to have no reasons. It's the characters' pasts that have been affected, not ours. You're right, however, that there's a (potential) problem with the backstories -- it's just not that problem. The golden anniversary is only 2 years away. It's very likely that recent (i.e., revived series) former companions will return and that means the writer(s) involved will need to know what those characters' backstories now are, so far as the characters themselves know. --89.241.76.22 22:43, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

i think of the cracks this way if you were to write out a essay in pencil and then i came along with a rubber and rubbed out the intro or any part it would not make much sense just as the cracks dont make any sense (e.g. hello how are you my name is whooligist i live on skaro and so am likey to die soon becomes hello i whooligist i live to die soon) this sentense makes a sort of sense but seems a bit odd and that is probably what it was like with the cracks or its like saying "hitler was bad becuse he did stuff....." it just does not fit and that is the whole point the silence are a bunch of strange beins that are kinda like suicidal bombers and must find it funny but bake to the main question if the docter never existed time would compencate for instace the duck pond with no ducks why? becuse time just contiues as it would of forgeting those details (e.g. this is a duck pond becuse it has ... in it or the daleks got blown up becuse ... did it or iantos girlfriend is cyberised becuse ....) these thing just happen and yet enother example j.k rowling erased but harry potter still writen but with no writer "harry potter and the deathly hallows by ...." now you guys are probably sick of my examples so i will shut up and see what you think Whooligist talk to me 22:55, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Despite the catastrophic spelling, I think I follow what you're saying and, to the characters within the story, it must be rather like that. To the audience (us), it isn't. We know there were reasons for the events and we know what the reasons were. We also know why the characters don't know the reasons. The logic is defensible, as I've said (or tried to say) above. On the other hand, Steven Moffat is only justified in revising the backstory as he has if he gives us really good stories which depend on the revisions -- stories he couldn't otherwise tell. So far, I don't think he has. Series 5 was about how the revisions happened and was pretty good. Series 6, however, did not give us any stories that needed those revisions. Everything in Series 6 would have worked more-or-less the same if there had never been any cracks and the universe had never been rebooted. Series 6 was also a curate's egg -- good in parts. What it was not was a sufficient reward to the audience for the mental gymnastics involved in following how we got where we did get. Russell T. Davies made a very drastic change from the 20th-century run of the show by getting rid of the Time Lords and Gallifrey. He also gave us some superb stories that depended directly upon that change, as well as showing us in more low-key ways how it had affected the Doctor. He made a big change and then used that change well. To date, Steven Moffat has made a big change and then not really used it at all. I don't quarrel with the logic of the change or with how it was presented in Series 5; I do quarrel with the failure to capitalise on it. --89.241.76.22 00:06, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with any particular statement you have made -- chacun a son gout -- I think that Moffatt has made the changes known gradually rather than all at once to ease us into this new Whoniverse. He believes -- as do I -- that the Doctor needs a bit of mystery to keep the backstory interesting, and this new universe is interesting. Notice how Davies spent season one revealing the Doctor to us, including the final mystery when the Ninth Doctor regenerates; only the question of the details of the Doctor's motives for destroyin Gallfrey were left for his last story. With that, everything is gone and a reset was needed. Although there are undeniably issues for the fanatic -- and all of us here are fanatics -- in terms of continuity -- after all, we've spent a lot of time and effort understanding what was going on and it feels frustrating to be plunged back into the darkness -- the Doctor, after two seasons of Moffat's helming, is again a madman in a box with only hints to keep us interesting. It's hard on us, admittedly, but the show needs the madman in the box with the occasional revelation.... and that's what we've got. Would a clean reboot have been any more acceptable? I think not. This is a compromise. Like all compromises, it really satisfies no one, but it is necessary. Boblipton talk to me 02:44, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I did say "So far" and "To date". I recognise that Moffat may (and I hope he will) capitalise on the reboot eventually; I just wish he'd already started doing so. It is too soon to say with any certainty that he's taken a wrong turn but, unfortunately, we can't yet say with any certainty that he hasn't. I suppose my message to him would be: "Judgement suspended -- but please get a move on!" -- (formerly 89.241.76.22) 89.240.255.181 08:55, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

If a person existed without ever having had any parents, other people wouldn't just ignore it. And if characters' pasts are changed, well, that basically renders a lot of those earlier, pre-Crack stories worthless, doesn't it? And I still want to know who Cyberised Lisa, and who killed Harriet Jones and all those other people in TSE/JE, and why River was sent to the Byzantium if there were never any Angels in TTOA/F&S. On the other hand, a part of me realises that I'm most likely not going to get answers to these questions, because there aren't any. Unless, of course, things eaten by the Crack only disappear from peoples' memories, rather than physical existence itself, but that theory is too unpopular. 82.2.136.93 15:05, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

What does Lisa have to do with anything? The erased events may or may not have been restored, but why should we make things even more complicated by randomly guessing at events that may or may not have been erased? The Stolen Earth/Journey's End was at least partially erased, for a time, and The Next Doctor was erased. Apart from that, there is no reason to believe that any episodes from the RTD era were erased. Sure, Amy didn't recognize the Daleks or Cybermen, but neither did Donna. Amy lives in the middle of nowhere, and it is likely that the she completely missed that invasion, just like Donna did. We know from Miracle Day that not all of the major invasions were erased, since the 456 invasion still happenned, and we know from Children of Earth that half the world still didn't believe in aliens even after the Daleks moved the planet. As for the events that we know were erased, Harriet Jones may not have been killed by the Daleks, but she still died. It's the same reason that Amy was still alive when her parents never existed. The cracks clearly do cause people to ignore indescrepencies like this. Icecreamdif talk to me 00:25, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

We got pretty much to this point on October 20, 2011 and, as pointed out then, people don't just ignore the discrepancies, they resist having their attention drawn to them. It isn't just a passive failure to notice; it's an active refusal to do so. There is something about the cracks that give people a real aversion to engaging with the discrepancies. I don't want to repeat everything that was written in October but it'd be worth scrolling up and re-reading it. --2.101.55.167 01:16, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

This whole argument is really going in circles. People who don't like the premise of the cracks are just complaining about them by pointing out seeming-plot holes, despite the fact that they have been explained in the show. I personally agree that it was dumb to erase any major events from the past few seasons, but within the story it does make sense, even if it is pretty dumb. Apart from the references to the past seasons, though, the cracks were actually a pretty good plot arc.Icecreamdif talk to me 03:23, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

With respect, Icecreamdif, Donna's ignorance of the Daleks is slightly more reasonable, seeing as how their only appearance in large numbers prior to that point was only in one location, specifically Canary Wharf, and they weren't really around long enough for people to get a really good look at them. The Dalek attack in TSE/JE is something that would be absolutely impossible for anyone anywhere in the world to not know about, and would be irrefutable proof of the existence of alien life. And Cybermen were popping up in virtually every home a couple years ago, so I find it odd that Craig shows no recognition when he sees them in Closing Time. 82.2.136.93 21:29, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Torchwood retconned everyone? 83.100.186.113talk to me 17:23, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

So you don't like it? Boblipton talk to me 00:28, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Those were completely different Cybermen that were showing up back then though. They weren't even from the same universe. Presumably Craig thought "Oh wait, are those those robot things that pretended to be ghosts? No, they don't have the 'C' logo." Anyway, I think that we have already established that the 2009 Dalek invasion had at the very least been erased during the events of Victory of the Daleks. I never suggested otherwise, but that's not really what we're talking about right now. Cybermen weren't popping up in every home. I think it was really just the area around Canary Wharf-it was definetly either that or in the big cities. Either way, they weren't in every home, just a lot of homes. And that was drugs in the water supply anyway. Icecreamdif talk to me 07:26, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

"I think it was really just the area around Canary Wharf": The Taj Mahal isn't anywhere near Canary Wharf. Army of Ghosts/Doomsday made it extremely clear that the invasion was thoroughly worldwide. It was the Daleks who were only in (or, rather, above) London. As the Doctor said to Donna, "There were Cybermen in Spain, too."

"Presumably Craig thought ..." etc.: That's just silly! The "C" logo isn't that prominent and, anyway, it isn't what Craig (or anyone else) would most notice. The only people who'd pay attention to the "C" logo would be people who already knew about there being Cybermen from different universes and who were checking which lot they were dealing with. Apart from the logo, the two lots of Cybermen look identical. --89.241.68.26 19:23, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. A good indication, IMO, that the Cyber-army in AOG/DD was unwritten from time. This does, of course, beg the question of how certain things that happened because of it could still occur, e.g. the fall of Torchwood 1, Lisa getting Cyberised, Rose getting stuck in a parallel universe, etc. 82.2.136.93 21:04, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

And actually, it bears mentioning here that regarding Amy, she clearly did retain some knowledge of her parents when she first met the Doctor, as she told him that her mother used to carve smiling faces into apples. How could this be, when in all other instances she had no memories of her parents at all, like the Daleks? 82.2.136.93 21:07, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize that sarcasm doesn't translate to well through the internet, but I was joking about the Cybus logo. Anyawy, there were Cybermen all over the world, but were they actually going into houses and stuff everywhere, or were they just trying to upgrade people faster around Canary Wharf to deal with the Daleks? I haven't seen those episodes in a while. Anyway, if Donna was able to simply miss the Cyber-invasion, then there is no reason that Craig couldn't miss it. Besides, the entire invasion was just a hallucination brought about by drugs in the water. It is a bit weird that Amy was able to remember that her mom carved faces in the apples. It's probably the same as how she could sort of remember Rory after he was erased. She had probably seen an apple with a face carved in it lying around her house, knew that she should have a mom, and assumed that her mom carved the face in the apple. She was too distracted by the mad man in her house to realize that she couldn't remember any other details about her mom.Icecreamdif talk to me 22:59, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Some people around here think that the Time Field had the additional ability to make people angry. I think it was just due to pure human cussedness. Look at the way people around here whine because they don't understand this and don't understand that and stamp their widdle footses. I think that Amy's memory of her parents is in bits and pieces that don't quite fit together, like her mum carved faces into apples to make her enjoy them. Peoploe disappear but leave bits behind, like a diamond ring. But if you ask her a straight-up question, the chances are she won't remember it and the normal human reaction to that is that there is a moral failure.... and in order not to feel bad, it has to be someone else's fault. You get angry. Daleks? Pfui. Mum and dad? Now, that's important. Boblipton talk to me 01:08, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Donna missed the Cyber-invasion because she was scuba diving at the time. She may not actually have been in Spain so much as at sea off Spain. Boblipton's point about anger may well be true but rather irrelevant. The important point is that people are averse to having the inconsistencies pointed out. The angry reaction may indeed be the normal human reaction to someone trying to make them think about something they don't want to think about. Humans do react that way -- but only if they have some kind of emotional investment in the issue. The effect of the cracks seems to be to give people a personal aversion to thinking about the inconsistencies and the anger follows from that. --89.241.79.130 18:51, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

It isn't really too much of a stretch to say that Amy, Rory, and Craig all missed the Cyber-invasion. They would all have been aware of the ghosts, but I doubt that there were too many ghosts or Cybermen in Leadworth. Maybe there was one, but I doubt that the Cybermen would really bother with such a small town. There's a good chance that Craig was just sitting on his couch through the whole invasion, and the Cybermen couldn't possibly have gone into every house in the world.Icecreamdif talk to me 00:35, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

well, the ghosts were everywhere. remember the ghost forecast instead of a weather forcast? and there were more ghosts than usual when they turned into cybermen, increasing the chance of people seeing them. and it would have been talked about afterwards, at least until the published the story about drugs in the water suppply. also, the doctor seemed truly surprised when donna didn't recognise the cyermen or daleks when she explained she had been scuba diving in spain, meaning that unless your have your head in the sand (or underwater), you would know about the cybermen. and even with the drugs explanation, if craig recognised the cybermen from that incident, he would have freaked out, especially after the ignoring that major event only a few years before which was dismissed byeveryone as being hallucinations. i must add here, they should have made the difference between the cybermen more clear as when i first watched series 5 i din't know about the mondas cybermen and was confused as to why it went arround the head rather than being a brain transplant as in series 1-4, and i would have been even more confused about craigs cyberconversion if i hadn't known about the switch to the modas type before that episode. just saying, the difference between types has to be made more clear, especially after the doctor in the episode dalek mentioned something about the cybermen not being arround anymore while looking at a true mondas cyberman's head (as in the ones from the classic series). if they wanted to change cyber-species, they should have changed their apearance more than just removing the C and i think they should have looked like the ones from the 70s/80s to make the difference more obvious. Imamadmad talk to me 05:53, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Look, if the writers want to say that the Dalek and Cyberman invasions never happened, fine. But for the benefit of those of us who became emotionally invested in those earlier stories, they should have the sense to explain stuff like Rose still being trapped in another universe, Harriet Jones giving her life to save the world, and Donna being half-Time Lord, etc. Then there's more recent stuff like Amy's continued existence when her parents never existed at all, and the Byzantium still crashing when there were never any Weeping Angels to cause it to crash. 82.2.136.93 16:53, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Me, I want to know who won the seventh race at Belmont last month. Boblipton talk to me 19:19, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

I never suggested that Craig, Amy, and Rory didn't know about the ghosts. However, given where they were it is likely that to them the ghosts were really more of something that was going on around the world that didn't effect them personally. The fact that they did have shows that were trying to predict where ghosts would appear proves that there must have been at least some kind of vague pattern to their appearances-like that they are more likely to appear in big cities than small towns. There simply weren't enough Cybermen for them to be everywhere. And, of course the Doctor was surprised that Donna didn't know about the Cyber-invasion. The Doctor was right at the center of it, and it was a pretty important part of his recent life. It hadn't even occured to him that some humans might not really know much about it. The fact that people like Rhys actually believed the story about drugs in the water supply suggests that there was little or no video footage of the Cybermen, and what footage there was was erased by UNIT, Torchwood 3, Mr. Smith, or some other entity. Therefore, unless Craig, Amy, and Rory actually saw Cybermen, the news story they just heard would be something like "Drugs in the water supply have caused millions of people to hallucinate seeing a robot attack." Craig would have no reason to believe that the Cybermen were the same robots that people hallucinated about a few years ago. I do agree with Imamadmad that the real-universe Cybermen should have gotten some kind of redesign upon their return so that they weren't identical to the Pete's World ones. I don't remember the Doctor actually saying that the real Cybermen were extinct, but it still doesn't really make sense that they look identical to the Cybusmen. In the classic series, the Cyber-conversion process wasn't exactly like the one shown in Closing Time. If anything, it was more like the one seen in Cyberwomen, but we rarely saw a full conversion on screen in the Classic Series. Anyway, I guess they just didn't have enough money to give the Cybermen a full redesign. It's too bad- in-universe, redesigning the Cybermen would have made more sense than redesigning the Silurians, and it would have made much more sense than redesigning the Daleks in any universe. Actually, after seeing what the current production team did to the Daleks, maybe it's best that they just leave the Cybermen alone, before we get plastic technicolor Cybermen. 82, the stories that focus on the cracks have made it perfectly clear that the cracks don't erase every effect that the erased person has ever had on the universe. The Doctor delivered a whole speech about that to Amy when she was starting to recognize her engagement ring.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:30, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that still leaves us with Harriet Jones and all those other people in STE/JE being killed by nothing, Amy just popping out of nowhere one day, the crew of the Byzantium and the Clerics being stalked and killed by nothing, and nothing deflecting the Silurian's blaster bolt at the Doctor in THE/CD. And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Craig live in the vicinity of London? 82.2.136.93 22:51, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

It also leaves us with Amy having a picture of a man who never existed dressed like a Roman, and an engagement ring given to her by noone. It has been pretty well established that the cracks leave paradoxes behind when they erase things. The Cybermen couldn't possibly have gone into every home in London. They probably picked at random, possibly based on how many people were inside for them to upgrade. Craig was probably just sitting on his couch at the time, and didn't happen to see any Cybermen. Even if the battle was going on outside his house, anyone with any sense would stay inside upon hearing explosions outside. Still, the Cybermen weren't everywhere, even in the London area, so the battle probably just wasn't going on in Aickman Road. There is a reason that it's called The Battle of Canary Wharf, and not The Battle of the London Area.Icecreamdif talk to me 23:37, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

In Craig's case he saw the cyberman from the distance in a darkened corridor and even if he did see the cybermen during Army of Ghosts/Doomsday he may not have realised it was the same thing.--82.11.57.232 19:44, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

I want the Cybus army to still have been involved in the Battle of Canary Wharf, and for the Daleks to still have invaded Earth in TSE/JE, because I don't like the thought of those stories being belittled by having key components removed from them. 82.2.136.93 23:04, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

You're not alone. Still, the only episodes that have definetly been erased are The Stolen Earth/Journey's End and The Next Doctor, and there's still a good chance that they were unerased after Big Bang 2.Icecreamdif talk to me 23:09, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's nice to know you feel the same way, Icecreamdif, but I think we have to accept that TSE/JE and TND were left erased after Big Bang 2, just like the Weeping Angels in TTOA/F&S were still erased. Unfortunately, this and other effects of the Cracks results in us twisting our brains apart trying to figure out how things make sense. 82.2.136.93 11:10, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Or a very extremely farfetched possible theory is that the TARDIS is not exactly a time-travelling machine as we perceive it, but more of a possibility travelling machine. Basically, it doesn't just travel on one timeline, and time is not just a single 1-dimensional line. The TARDIS at intersection points on time can travel to an alternate timeline, but once it is on the timeline, all timelines in the exact relative distance would no longer be viable travelling destinations forever, except those that it have travelled. In other words, it's not that reality and history contradicts itself, it's the Doctor can only be present in sections of certain seperate timelines, and these timelines, despite contradicting each others, are perfectly logical on their own.

In A Christmas Carol, it is very clear that Pre-Intervened present Kazran and Post-Intervened present Kazran are on two different timelines (one remembers the Doctor, and one doesn't, despite both being the cold-hearted old man). The TARDIS clearly hopped between timelines, but it is only able to travel to post-intervention timeline after the Doctor intervened and not the future of the other one.

In other word, the "time can be rewritten" thing probably works like this, let's take Father's Day for a hypothetical example, assuming the TARDIS would not be nullified and still works:
 * 1) Before the Doctor meets Rose, he can only travel to a past, present, future where he and Rose didn't go back and intervened Pete's death, and also ones where they did but once he went to one, he couldn't travel to the other unless he travelled back to the event of the intervention (the pivotal point in time).
 * 2) After Rose intervened and before the Reapers fixed anything, and assuming the TARDIS still worked, the Doctor and Rose could travel to a past where they didn't intervene Pete's death, the point of intervention, and a future where the intervention occured, but not the present where they didn't intervene
 * 3) After the Reapers fixed time, the Doctor could only travel to past (identical for intervened or non-intervened), present (intervened), future (intervened but fixed)

{C}So the Doctor in this hypothetical situation could very well have been to both futures in this theory. The possible reason why this didn't happen or wasn't known pre-Series 5 might be that throughout the old Seasons (and arguably until Series 4), the Timelord was still in influence. With renegade Timelords and Timelords observing different sections of time, and the pre-requisite opened possibility of the Doctor being able to travel to pivotal points in time in Gallifrey (on which timetravel was not allowed, meaning its timelines would be very limited comparing to other sections of time), and the inevitable use of timelink until the sacrifice of the Master in Series 4, limited the possibilties that the Doctor could travel to. --222.166.181.200 14:53, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

So Steven Moffat's invention of the Cracks was to get rid of all the big alien invasions from the last four series, and make the Doctor's Earth more like the real world? Sorry, but I think this is a fool's errand. Even after the Cracks, there are still plenty of things happening in the Whoniverse that clearly mark its Earth as different to our Earth. Take Miracle Day, when no one in the world could die for a while, a gigantic media event that could not be ignored by anybody. 82.2.136.93 12:39, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "fool's errand" if its objective is limited to removing public knowledge of aliens. The Miracle doesn't interfere with that. --78.146.185.202 19:19, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Even removing those invasions, nothing has changed. Plenty of people believe in aliens and plenty of people don't. The world was like that both before and after the new series began.Icecreamdif talk to me 02:11, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Just a question, has it even been explicitly shown that "Torchwood" series is still on the same timeline as "Doctor Who" after Big Bang 2? If not, then I think it may be a quite an assumption to assume that Miracle Day is on the timeline after Big Bang 2. It could theoretically be the supposing future on the timeline in which BB2 has not occurred, just like how Starship UK, etc all occur in the future after BB2. I am somewhat doubtful the three shows are still on the same timeline now, and it might have been the real intention of Moffat. --222.166.181.144 12:26, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

I never got that impression. Besides, I think RTD and Moffat would want to keep the shows in the same continuum to allow for possible future crossovers. SJA Series 4 and 5 occur after BB2, as in Death of the Doctor, the Eleventh Doctor turns up and mentions Amy and Rory as being on their honeymoon. 82.2.136.93 20:21, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

A split-timeline doesn't really work here. Big Bang 2 isn't just a case of somebody going back in time and changing history. The original universe was completely destroyed. Nothing is happenning, has happenned, or ever will happen in that universe. However, by causing Big Bang 2, the Doctor replaced that universe with a new, identical, universe, that is exactly the same as the old universe. Doctor Who and Torchwood are, and always will be, set in the same universe.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:40, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

The out-of-universe evidence is that they're intended to be set in the same universe. Moffat and Davies have said that they checked with each other so they could avoid introducing incompatibilities. Of course, it's always open to us to argue about how well they managed to avoid introducing incompatibilities. (I assume that they included SJA in their consultations, since Elisabeth Sladen's illness wasn't known about until very late in the production process.) --89.242.75.216 00:11, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

They weren't really incompatible. It would have been nice if Moffat had put a couple of references to the miracle in Doctor Who, but I don't think that any of the Earth-based episodes of Doctor Who took place during the miracle anyway, so it is perfectly believable that it just never came up in conversation. Were any dates ever given in Miracle Day?Icecreamdif talk to me 01:55, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion of the dating elsewhere on this site and the conclusion reached was, as far as I recall, that the Earth-based scenes in Doctor Who were all set before the Miracle started. I can't remember what the topic was, however, and it'll have been archived by now. --89.242.75.216 03:13, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was probably part of that conversation, but I don't really remember how it went. If all of Doctor Who season 6 was before the miracle though, then it all works.Icecreamdif talk to me 03:40, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

You were part of that conversation. I remember you being there, even if you don't. And, as you say, as long as everything on contemporary (or near-contemporary) Earth in Series 6 was before the Miracle started, it all works. The Christmas Special, this year, is reportedly set during World War II, so there presumably won't be references to the Miracle in it. There ought to be in Series 7, however, unless it avoids contemporary Earth. Anything set substantially in the future might omit mention of it simply because it wasn't relevant to what was happening then. The Vietnam war, say, was a big historical event and most people know about it (although not necessarily very accurately) but it doesn't crop up in conversation every five minutes. --89.241.71.13 16:01, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that conversation in the archives, and now I remember it. I'm sure that there will be some modern-day Earth episodes next season. There have been in every season of the new series, under both RTD and Moffat. It would definetly be a nice continuity reference if they mentioned the Miracle, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just ignored it. Moffat isn't going to want to spend time on Doctor Who showing the world recovering from a depression that was depicted in Torchwood, so we will probably just have to assume that things went back to normal after the miracle ended. The best way to plausibly avoid miracle references would probably be to do another year skip, but I don't think that anyone wants to go through that headache again. Besides, there were no signs of a depression in Fear Her or Dalek. Anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing the Doctor's next companion being either an alien or a human from some other point in history. Then the Doctor can visit his new companions home planet and era all the time instead of 21st century Earth. In the past, we have never gotten to see his alien companions' planets more than once (although that makes sense for Adric and Nyssa).Icecreamdif talk to me 17:38, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

We got to see Romana's home planet a few times! Admittedly, we never saw her there. On your general point, I agree it'd be good to have an alien companion and/or a human from another era -- although I suppose Jack Harkness is technically a human from another era and River might count as one, as well. With advances in makeup techniques, etc., a clearly nonhuman companion could now be done better than it could have in the 1963-89 run of the show. If Neve McIntosh would put up with it, we could have a Silurian companion -- but she may be getting tired of wearing green latex faces. (Come to think of it, if Moffat gets tired of Sherlock, he could do a Victorian-era Doctor Who spin-off featuring Madame Vastra and Jenny.) A cat-person might work, too. This, though, is getting off-topic. --89.240.245.151 22:04, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Even if it was just a near-human alien like we've had in the past, it could be interesting if they explored their homeworld and customs a bit more. Just looking at the new series, for example, if Astrid and Lynda hadn't died, then it would have been cool to see the Doctor make regular trips to Sto and far-future Earth. Maybe he can have a companion from Alpha-centauri. I'm sure people would take a companion wearing that costume seriously.Icecreamdif talk to me 05:14, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

ugh, i think i would go mad if i had to listen to that voice every week! Imamadmad talk to me 09:19, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

I don't even try to make sense of A Christmas Carol, as it simply isn't possible. I prefer to just ignore it and its inherent flaws. 194.168.208.42 12:35, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

I thought A Christmas Carol was one of the better Christmas episodes they've done. What flaws are you referring to? And, what does that have to do with this conversation. Granted, we don't really seem to be talking about how the Doctor never existed anymore, but whatever.Icecreamdif talk to me 17:29, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

uh...how could anyone not realize that A Christmas Carol makes no real life sense at all? Present Kazran did not know the doctor in the beginning of the episode but by the end of episode, he was told that he was a grumpy and bitter old man because of the Doctor. --222.166.181.154

it's been a while since i last saw that episode (well, about a year), but i did find it illogical that by the doctor changing his timestream, he didn't really chang his life at all. i mean, how could the isomorphic controls not recognise him. he hadn't changed at all in the timeline he was in at the end of the episode! also, if he was changed so much, why was he left in the same place at the same time as if the timeline had never been changed. one would have thought he would have lead a rather different life after the doctor's intervention than from before, but there seems to be no change until the doctor shows him his new memories. (note: wherever i used the words him or he in this post i am refering to kazran.) Imamadmad talk to me 04:54, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

There was a slight delay in the changes to the timestream, which makes about much sense as rewriting history in any other episode. Kazran didn't change at all until the the Doctor showed old Kazran to young Kazran, because the different events of his life caused him to become the same man for different reasons. The Doctor had to show Kazran his memories for the same reason that the ghosts had to show Scrooge his memories in the original story-Kazran had become a bitter old man who had nearly forgotten about his adventures with the Doctor. So, in the original timeline Kazran was a bitter old man, who didn't know the Doctor, because his father abused him as a child. In the timeline that the Doctor created as the ghost of Christmas-past, Kazran was a bitter old man, who did know the Doctor, because AAbigail was frozen. The memories were a part of him as soon as the Doctor started changing things, but they were from so long ago, and he was so bitter, that he needed a bit of reminding to remember events from so long in his past. Then, at the end of the episode, Kazran was a much nicer man because he had seen his future as a kid and didn't want to grow up to be like that. However, he was able to remember all three timelines, and got them slightly confused, so at first, as his memories were still upgrading to the new timeline, he didn't remember that his father hadn't liked him enough to set the isomorphic controls for him in the current timeline. Honestly though, when has changing history ever been easy to understand in Doctor Who. The story and dialogue were good even if the mechanics of the time travel were a little bit weird. That still doesn't answer my question though. We were talking about the Doctor having alien companions, so how did we jump from that to A Christmas Carol?Icecreamdif talk to me 06:26, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

i have no idea how we got to a christmas carol. ask 222. but i think having an alien companion would be interesting. however, i'm not sure if it would work as well, as the human companion is what helps us connect better to an alien doctor. i haven't seen any of the classic episodes with an alien companion yet, so you who have seen it can give their opinion on that. however, i would like to see humans from another time like jack becoming residents of the tardis, maybe not as the only companion but maybe along with a contemporary human. Imamadmad talk to me 06:42, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

The Doctor who had the most alien companions was probably the Fifth Doctor, and in many ways you probably wouldn't even have known they were aliens if you hadn't seen their first episodes. We never got to see their any of their planets more than once (Adric's was in another universe that they couldn't access, the Master destroyed Nyssa's, and Turlough was exiled from his), and none of them really acted too alien. Nyssa was clearly a bit smarter than a modern-day human, but she could have just as easily have been a human from the far future if you're only going by how she acted, and Turlough always seemed at least a little bit alien. The companion who probably seemed the most alien was probably the Fourth Doctor's companion Leela, who was technically a human, but who had been raised as a savage and never heard of Earth until she met the Doctor, due to her ancestors crashing on some planet. She was a pretty interesting companion, but having a savage companion sort of got old after a while. Anyway, if they still feel that they need a human companion as an audience surrogate, they can always do what they did back in the Fifth Doctor's time (though perhaps execute it better) and have the Doctor have human and alien companions at the same time. One problem that I've always had with Doctor Who is that it can be a bit too Earth-centric at times. The Doctor is an alien who can travel to any point in space and time, and yet he seems to end up in 20th and 21st century Earth more than anywhere else. It obviously made sense when the Third Doctor was exiled there, and it makes sense when he has a modern-day Earth companion with him, but almost all of his last several companions have been from the same planet and the same period of history. Maybe it's because his mom is from Earth. Still, it made no sense back when the First and Second Doctors couldn't even control the TARDIS. Either way, in the classic series there could sometimes be quite a bit of time in between his visits to modern-day Earth, so I wouldn't mind seeing them taking a break from that for a while to focus on an alien planet. It would also solve the problem that Moffat seems to have with alien invasions becoming too public. It would certainly be a better solution than erasing them.Icecreamdif talk to me 07:23, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the Christmas Carol, people are right in that it makes no sense. The Doctor wouldn't be the cause of Kazran bitterness, it also makes no sense to have memory gradually being created in synchronicity with the Doctor's actions in the past since they are already in the past, the machine not recognizing Kazran, which in the timeline, has always been the same Kazran.

I think Torchwood and Doctor Who not being in the same timeline anymore may be possible if the shows do not make any connection in the future. A theoretical alternate future(s) must have existed in the spots affected by Crack/Big Bang as timelines where Rory's existence and inexistence were both shown in Series 5. River's existence and knowledge of Rory's identity showed an array of timelines. Whether Moffat and RTD would be that ambitious and severe the ties between the shows would be the key question. --222.166.181.246 07:57, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

well, i do know that they were planning of having captain jack in AGMGTW but he was buisy filming MD in america at the time so he couldn't do it. this proves to me that the writers want the possibility of crossovers between the shows to happen in the future and probably means they are on the same timeline. Imamadmad talk to me 08:05, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, so in the post-Cracks universe, how did Donna become half-Time Lord, who killed Harriet Jones, and how did the Byzantium crash? 82.2.136.93 10:39, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

how do you get from torchwood to cracks, unless you're thinking about how the cardiff rift is said to now have been closed along with the cracks, or at least that's what i heard RTD said. and who knows, maybe donna is now completely human, harriet jones is still alive and the byzantium didn't crash, at least not on this timestream, but we experience the doctor's timeline which crosses many timestreams. imagine a 5d universe. the doctor can travel in the first 4, but he is constantly moving sideways in time to parallel timestreams as he changes history, like we can all move about in the first 3 dimentions but are forced to move forward in time. all that stuff happens to the left of the doctor's current position on the timeline as he is moving right.so, he still remembers it but it hasn't happened in that specific timestream. well, that's one theory anyway. or, we could just say they are causeless events that happened for inexplicable reasons. Imamadmad talk to me 11:36, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone but me looked at Good Night? Boblipton talk to me 13:28, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Imamadmad, "we experience the doctor's timeline which crosses many timestreams. imagine a 5d universe": Theoretical physicists already imagine an 11-D universe (last I heard -- may be more by now) but I know what you mean: 3-D space, 1-D "normal" time, and 1-D "meta-time" (for want of a better word). Something much like this has been discussed on this site before and, as far as I can see, having a "meta-time" dimension is the only way the thing can work. It'd really need to be a 6-D universe, though, because a second dimension of time was established in Battlefield, where the (7th) Doctor talks of "sideways in time, across the boundaries that divide one universe from another". That second dimension of time clearly cannot be the "meta-time" we need to make sense of the Doctor's career. As you say, we can move fairly freely in the 3 dimensions of space but slide through the 1 dimension of "normal" time automatically. Time travellers can move fairly freely in the 3 dimensions of space and the 1 dimension of "normal" time. When Gallifrey and the Time Lords were around (in the "classic" series), travel in the 2nd dimension of time was also comparatively easy, so the Doctor, among others, could and occasionally did visit alternate universes of various kinds. Without Gallifrey and the Time Lords (in the revived series), that became increasingly difficult. It's still not totally impossible -- The Doctor's Wife, for example -- although it seems to be heading that way. In "normal" time, the (9th) Doctor and Rose met Charles Dickens, in 1869, before the (1st) Doctor and Susan met Barbara Wright and Ian Chesterton, in 1963. In "meta-time", it was the other way around. What I've called "meta-time" isn't simply the same as the Doctor's personal timeline, though, because his personal timeline can and has folded back on itself more than once -- The Three Doctors, The Five Doctors, The Two Doctors and Time Crash. --2.96.21.210 13:51, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

... following the timeline of the Doctor through his various incarnations. Did anyone but me ever have a relative who saved twine in the junk drawer? My mother used to keep a ball of twine in hers with the eggbeaters, corn holders and all the strange little specialized kitchen gadgets. It was usually a struggle to get the drawer open, and when you did, you invariably found the twine snaked and tangled around all sorts of things. You would then spend half an hour untangling things, cleaning out the crumbs that had appeared out of nowhere and placing everything neatly back into the drawer, knowing that the next time you opened it, the contents would be the same snarled mess. It couldn't possibly get that messed up, yet it always did. Boblipton talk to me 14:12, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Well if Donna was never half-Time Lord, she wouldn't have been able to fight off the Master's clones in The End of Time, and this would have changed a lot of what happened in that story. The Byzantium still crashed after the Cracks were sealed, as when River appears in Amy and Rory's garden at the end of TWORS she's just come from there. And if the Byzantium never crashed, River wouldn't have earned her pardon, as she would never have been sent there, would she? The only way the Byzantium could have crashed is if the Weeping Angels still existed at some point in time and space. Same with Amy's parents, and Rory, etc, etc. It only seems like they never existed to non-time travellers, people who are stuck in one dimension of time. 82.2.136.93 14:41, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

I think the same timeline travelling thing applies to our crack-influenced Amy too even if not to other timetravellers. This would also explain why Amy seem to have no problem interacting with young Amelia; they are two different entities altogether, the instances of Amelia we see after Eleventh Hour are all from a different timeline than the one Amy originated from and will grow to be a different Amy in a part of the timeline inaccessible to the TARDIS (at least in any direct or indirect way that would bring Amy there).--222.166.181.4 17:29, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

None of which helps explain how Amy could exist without parents, how the Byzantium still crashed without Weeping Angels, how the Doctor survived Cold Blood without Rory, how Earth existed without the rest of the universe, how the universe survived without the Doctor, etc, etc. 194.168.208.42 17:43, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Please read other people's earlier comments before commenting, 194. --222.166.181.223 18:08, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but as fascinating as discussing the Doctor's personal timeline vs. the rest of the universe is, I prefer to believe that all the Doctor's past adventures on contemporary Earth before Amy still happened, and that Rose's Earth and Amy's Earth are the same. 82.2.136.93 21:58, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and hasn't the Doctor been stuck on one timestream since the end of the Time War, unable to pop over to any others? 82.2.136.93 22:03, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

the doctor must continually make new timestreams depending on what he does otherwise dalek and the stolen earth/journey's end couldn't happen in the same timeline. and with the cracks, the events still happened before they were errased, meaning the errased events hapenned on a timestream that is different to the one where they weren't errased. oh, and @boblipton, i've seen the night and the doctor things as well. Imamadmad talk to me 03:48, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Doctor existing in different timelines-you may have missed the occasional reference to this, but time can be rewritten. This is a long-established fact in the Doctor Who universe. The earliest episode that I can think of where this occured was The Space Museum, but there were probably references to that earlier as well. This is also relevant in A Christmas Carol, whose relevance to this conversation I still don't see. It might be worth starting a seperate conversation about that. Anyway, there are two relatively simple theories that I can think of that make A Christmas Carol make sense. One is that, as soon as Kazran said "but I do remember" or "I did happen," or whatever the line was, the changes had caught up to him, and all the events with Abigail and the sharks and the fish were in his memory. At that point, it was basically the same story as Dickens' version A Christmas Carol, except the Doctor was reminding Kazran of his past by showing him videos and photos instead of by taking him back in time. The second theory, goes with how the Doctor explained time being rewritten to Martha in The Shakespeare Code. He basically said that it works the same as in Back to the Future. In Back to the Future the changes often weren't instantaneous. Marty's family didn't change as soon as Marty travelled back in the De'lorean. He travelled back to the 50s, and after he prevented his parents from meeting, the photograph he had of his family began to change. Oddly, there seems to have been a timeline where his brother didn't have a head, but the future changed as he was changing events in the past. Then, after he got his parents to kiss, the photograph changed back. The same thing was basically happenning in A Christmas Carol, except that we saw it from the other end. Kazran's past was changing as the Doctor made the changes, even though they weren't actually happenning simultaneously but were happenning several decades apart. Kazran, like many characters in Doctor Who, was just able to remember both timelines, probably because the Doctor had actually told him he was changing the past. The machine at the end not working for him is simple enough no matter how you look at it anyway. In that timeline, the machine had never worked for him. His father wasn't going to let a nice person use his machine, so he never programmed the isomorphic controls to work for him. The machine was still sitting there though, even though nobody was capable of using it. Since Kazran was still recovering from his entire life being changed, he didn't remember that the machine didn't work for him in that timeline. As for the changes from the cracks-first of all, if Donna was never half Time Lord, she would have turned into the Master anyway, and the rest of the story would be exactly the same. She didn't exactly do anything important. Second of all, as has been proven, and stated in this forum countless times, the cracks remove things from history, but they don't change the effect that they had on the world. Amy is able to live without having had parents, and Harriet Jones is able to be dead without the Daleks, because that's how the cracks work. It's as simple as that. You might as well ask why people don't ever remember the Silence, or why (most) people suddenly become evil as soon as they are turned into a Cybermen.Icecreamdif talk to me 05:39, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

well, first things first, i would like to point out to you that the cybermen are not evil. they are humans who have had their bodies replaced with what is basically a robotic body, had their emotions and therefore morals restricted, and generally feel that being a cyberman is better than being a human with pain, discrimination, and so many other negatives that come with being human that don't happen to cybermen and forget the positives and are genuinley surprised when people don't want to be converted, however, the cubermen think they are doing the humans a favour so they keep going. this does not make them evil, they merely do not understand. so there, i just explained why people suddenly become "evil" as soon as they are turned into cybermen. now back to the main point. obviously time can be rewritten, but it is how you view time that determines how. for example, in the multiple time dimentions theory that was discussed previously, it is changed simply by having moved further to the right in time which means that it is harder to destroy events that have already happened to a timetraveler. for example, what happened to the events in dalek after journeys end? in this theory, they still happened, but further to the left of the current timestream, avoiding paradoxes. however, if you believe that time simply changes, then dalek couldn't have happened, meaning the doctor wouldn't have picked up adam which means that it would be less likely that the doctor would have gone to satelite 5 meaning the doctor wouldn't have recognised it in bad wolf/parting of ways as well as he wouldn't have changed it to be that way which would have affected the outcome of the story meaning there is a smaller chance that he regenerated there meaning... basically by errasing an event (not in a cracky way with the consequences still leftover) one can change the characters whole history. now, in my example, the doctor might still have gone to satelite 5, but it would be less likely as the doctor took rose and adam there basically as a date. also, it was in dalek that the doctor realised just how bad guns were, when he realised that by using one, he was no better than a dalek. so, you see, by errasing an event from someones life, you can fundamentally change who they are (even if not immediately) which could cause the event they caused that meant the previous event was errased to not have happened. yet again in this example, if dalek hadn't made the doctor realise how having a gun made him like a dalek, he might of just shot dalek caan preventing TSE/JE to not happen. in a 5(or more)d universe, that event which changed the doctor's character still happened to the left of the current timestream but still in the doctor's timeline which means no paradoxes. so really, although time can be rewritten by sliding to a new timestream to the right of the current one which contains the changes and appears to non 5+d universe thinkers that the timestream they are on has changed or been rewritten, as the "the current timestream has just been changed" theory would lead to some messy consequences which we do not see in the show. Imamadmad talk to me 06:15, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I was just using the Cybermen as an example, but the new ones are just as likely to "delete" people, and the real Cybermen probably killed people more often than they cyber-converted them. Anyway, let's try to avoid getting too far off topic. The Doctor disliked guns since long-before Dalek. The Third Doctor, especially, loved to argue about guns with Lethbridge-Stewart. Anyway, as a Time Lord, the Doctor is obviously immune to time being rewritten no matter what theory the show goes with. He, at the very least, would still remember Dalek, and it is likely that Rose and Adam would as well. Anyway, I don't think that Doctor Who really goes with one single theory about how time travel and time being rewritten works. In the very first episode, I think that Susan said that there were only four or five dimensions. Anyway, Doctor Who goes with whatever theory works best with the particular story. I doubt that the idea of some events being fixed while others are in flux is based around any real life theory, but it is a good way to explain why the Doctor insists that history must not be changed in episodes like The Time Meddler and The Aztecs, but is able to change time freely in pretty much any episode where he stops some kind of alien invasion. With almost 50 years of incsonsistencies between episodes, I doubt that it is really possible to make sense of the nature of time.Icecreamdif talk to me 06:47, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

So until Amy remembered the Doctor back into existence at the end of TBB, who was UNIT's scientific advisor all those years? Who took Sarah Jane, and all those other companions, on fantastic journies through time and space? Because if the Doctor's entire existence was literally excised from time, all those things would have been accomplished by....well, an empty space. Same with Amy; she just literally popped out of nowhere one day. It's a bit rubbish, IMO, but there you go. 82.2.136.93 11:13, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

As much as I didn't buy Moffat's poor writing these 2 series and this ludicrous cracked up concept, I think you are misinterpreting the implication of the multiple-timeline thing. Say for example, in our timeline in real life, we always can trace back 1 state backward to the current stage until the Big Bang, which Hawkings believe to be meaningless to ask the state before such and the Big Bang marks a "generic" beginning of time. The new timelines may very well be disconnected and segmented, there may not be a state before whatever's relevant to Amy's existence including the state required to bring her into existence.

---13:16, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'll say the dread words:

I don't know and that's ok.

This whole thread seems to me to be pretty worthless, because each side is coming at it from a different perspective. From my viewpoint, on the other side are a bunch of spoiled childrne who think they are entitled to know everything because they are so smart from from the other side, it looks like I'm a guy who is so much brighter than they and it's embarrassing so they're throwing a fit to cover. there are a bunch of yahoos with no intellectual rigor. You might as well have a discussion on evolution when one guy is saying "Why would Jesus let that happen?" If Moffat were a pianist, he'd be one who played in the cracks. So long as he cranks out the interesting jokes and characters, I'm happy. Boblipton talk to me 13:26, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

yeah? well, that's no fun then. anyway, i like arguing debating over the way time works in the whoniverse. so, lets go off topic here, forget about the cracks, and continue talking about how time works in the whoniverse, more specifically about how changing time works in the universe, based on evidence found in the show. and who knows? maybe something new will be revealed in the christmas special. Imamadmad talk to me 13:42, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Slightly mind-bending as it is, there's some point in trying to understand how the thing works -- or might work -- and what the implications would be. There isn't really much point just saying, "I didn't like it, so it can't possibly work!" -- and absolutely no point saying that repetitively. --89.240.254.158 15:02, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

See my last post above to know my reasons for disliking the way the Crack works (or rather, how the majority appear to think it should work). 82.2.136.93 22:10, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

yes well that exact same point has been made a billion times before so if you're not going to add anythng new to the discussion, well, there's no point adding anything at all. Imamadmad talk to me 23:11, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the idea of erasing past episodes, but I don't have a problem with the way the cracks work. I just wish they had stuck to it erasing things from Moffat's stories, like Rory and Amy's parents. Really, the only reason to say that you don't like the way that the cracks work is because you don't like the story they were portrayed in. The way that the work makes about as much sense as anything else does in Doctor Who. They make infinitely more sense then those monsters that randomly appeared because of the paradox in Father's Day, and they make just about as much sense as the TARDIS does, or the idea of completely turning back time in The Invasion of the Dinosaurs and The City of Death or "jumping a time track" in The Space Museum, or any of the other ridiculous time travel concepts that have appeared over the years. Really, we just can't really imagine how time travel would actually work, so we have to take the writer's word for it. The story says that even after something is erased it's effect on the world still remains, so that's how it works, and it makes perfect sense.Icecreamdif talk to me 04:42, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

~As messy as the segmented timelines theory is, let's not forget that River shooting what everyone thought was the Doctor is a fixed point in time that cannot be changed. We know fixed point has a bit of a wiggle room, like dying on Mars/Earth didn't make much of a difference. Amy witnessing it could also be a part of the fixed point...so Amy's existence could be required. --222.166.181.65 06:15, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

fixed points are interesting. especially changing them. so, a fixed point in time is something that must always happen, and if changed could lead to some dire consequences, like time colapsing in weding of river song (shortened for convenience to WORS). however, minor details can still be changed like in waters of mars (WOM) without total event colapse. how minor must a detail be for a changed fixed point to not colapse? oh yes, and what's a still point and does anyone have any ideas on how it could be turned into a fixed point? Imamadmad talk to me 06:32, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Things can get very confusing when it comes to fixed points. In Waters of Mars, for example, the Dalek decided not to kill Adelaide because killing her then would be altering a fixed point. But, the Daleks were planning "the destruction of reality ittself" anyway, which would end up killing Adelaide anyway (not to mention Mt. Vesuvius and River). The point of fixed points is really so that you can take the Doctor seriously when he says, for example, that you cannot stop the Aztecs from practicing human sacrifice, despite the fact that he interferes with history in just about every episode.Icecreamdif talk to me 07:29, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

The main source of confusion with fixed points (for me, at least) is not knowing what about them is fixed and what isn't. As pointed out, in the case of Adelaide Brooke, her death itself was fixed but its location was not. Although it wasn't stated, it's at least possible that the Dalek refrained from killing the young Adelaide because it thought that altering a fixed point in that way would disrupt the Daleks' plans. Equally, of course, it's possible that that Dalek was too low in the hierarchy to know that its bosses were planning the "reality bomb" -- sparing her doesn't need to make sense to the Daleks as a whole; it only needs to make sense to that individual Dalek, on the basis of the information it had at the time. --2.96.21.103 10:22, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Well, then, 2, when you go time travelling, behave with discretion. The way this thread has gone since my last posting is illustrative of the issues. 89 points out that figuring out the rules of the universe from the available data is an intellectual game. Quite true. However, this thread is not about that. It has numerous examples of people complaining that they can't figure it out and that therefore it doesn't make sense. I've given up playing Go because it's too tough, but it would never occur to me to demand that they change the rules to accommodate me. As for the issue of why the Dalek didn't exterminate Adelaide, we have the Doctor's explanation. We also have 1: why should it?; 2: The plan is for Davros is to activate the reality bomb, and therefore it is not my place in the hierarchy to interfere with the planend destruction of the universe; 3:I don't understand the rules of fixed points, and interfering with one may result in the universe not being detroyed as planned. I should behave with discretion; 4: My gunstick is out of power. Better go back to get it recharged. Boblipton talk to me 11:51, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

If the writers had had the sense to explain how and why the effects individuals have on the rest of reality remain valid after said individuals are retroactively erased, we probably wouldn't have half the problems with the concept that we do. Sadly, I suspect we're not going to get an explanation. 82.2.136.93 13:05, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

82, if you care to read the above post, this whole thread is devoted to discussing itand suggesting that each crack effect moves the TARDIS and its passengers to a certain segment of another timeline and TARDIS could be hopping between timelines since the beginning.

back to the conversation, I think the impression we get from River's action in changing the timeline that "time dying" may be worse than destroying all of creations...not sayint that just because it's placed in a later series automatically qualified for it being more epic, but "time dying" involves everything messing up, so the people may be subject to infinite tortures caused by the collapse of time. I don't know if it's just me, I am getting the vibe that isn't this a lot similar to what we know about the Last Great Time War? Just saying...--222.166.181.139 14:47, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

It isn't just you. It reminded me of that, too, although there seem to be differences. Differences are to be expected, of course: in the one case, a single individual (River) tried to rewrite a fixed point; in the other, two extremely powerful time-travelling races were engaged in total war. --2.96.21.103 19:26, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

How does the Cracks causing the TARDIS and its crew to jump timelines (which I don't believe is the case) explain how Amy can exist without parents? 82.2.136.93 19:59, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

if you care to read the rest of the thread before posting, the theory is that the Amelia on that specific timeline would never have parents to begin with. --222.166.181.135 08:02, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Does it really matter how the effects that individuals have on reality can remain even after they erased. The fact is that they do. I'm sure that if Moffat had wanted to, he could have had the Doctor spew out enough technobabble to make it work. However, the fact is, nobody, including Moffat himself, would really have understood the explanation. We don't understand how the cracks erase things at all either. Or how the TARDIS is able to travel through time. The writers tell us that this is how the universe works, so we have to accept it. There haven't been any episodes that tell us that what the cracks do isn't possible, and the show pretty much lives on showing us stuff that is impossible in reality anyway, so what is the problem with Moffat not slowing down an episode by explaining precisely how the cracks function?Icecreamdif talk to me 20:32, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Look, just let me ask a few simple questions: In the post-Cracks universe, did Harriet Jones still heroically give her life to save the Earth? Did Donna still become the DoctorDonna and then have her memories of the Doctor erased? Is Martha still married to Mickey? If the answer to all these questions is yes, well, that would provide me with some measure of comfort. 82.2.136.93 21:03, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Based on the effect we've seen the cracks have in the past, I'd say that Harriet Jones still died a heroic death, but not against anyone in particular, Donna has definetly lost her memory at this point, and it is possible that she was the Doctor-Donna at one point just not for any real reason, and Martha and Mickey are still married but if you asked them how they met they would just get confused.Icecreamdif talk to me 03:56, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Given that (for whatever reason) the cracks do behave as we've seen -- and, in paricular, that consequences persist, even when the cause has been erased -- Donna should still have a Time Lord mentality lurking in the background, suppressed but able to be brought to the surface if she remembered being with the Doctor. As Icecreamdif says, the reason for that would not be known by (and maybe not knowable to) anyone but the Doctor. However, Donna's Time Lord mentality, despite being suppressed, did protect her from the Master's little trick with the healing gate, so it's at least possible that the memories she doesn't know she has would still include all the erased events. If something triggered her recall, Donna might remember Davros, the Crucible, the Daleks, etc., at least until the process killed her or the "defense mechanism" the Doctor implanted knocked her out and made her forget again. That's pure speculation, of course, and we're never likely to find out. --89.240.253.115 08:07, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Even if she did though, it's not like she would be able to do anything with the information. From what we saw in End of Time, the memories overwhelm her and she doesn't have a chance to try to make sense of them before the defense mechanism kicks in. Anyway, she wasn't really present in any erased events, except maybe the Dalek invasion. Icecreamdif talk to me 03:22, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

In the sections of the timeline accessible to the Doctor, these things would happen and contradicts other points in new post-BB2 timeline because they would be two different timelines. I think a big part of multi-timeline theory being quite helpful is that it will allow contradictions. It also means that if you were to ask Martha and Mickey how they met, they would know exactly how, when and where they met, but at another point in time of Doctor's travel, such event could have not existed.

One more cool thing (out of this horrible clusterfuck of mess that is the worst thing ever happened to Doctor Who) that I think Moffat is doing is that the Doctor is no longer in his comfort zone. Crack/time can be rewritten, time vortex radiation baby, open-mindedness to the existence of a cold star, changing fixed point; the Universe ever since the explosion of the TARDIS contained so many game-changing new rules that the Doctor is no longer the supreme authority in the subject. It is quite probable that Doctor do not understand the effect too. The Doctor is not just getting younger in physical appearance, he seems to be getting younger mentally too. The Tenth's scepticism to religion/legend to the Eleventh's openness to the impossible like a cold star is probably suggesting that. --222.166.181.16 18:16, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

The cracks aren't really a bad story element, though I wish that Moffat would keep them out of RTD's old story lines. Still, if anybody who's seen the 80s episodes should know that the cracks are far from the worst thing that's ever happened to Doctor Who. I'd say that it's either whoever cast and wrote for Mel, or whoever scored the Seventh Doctor's episodes. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the Doctor being a bit out of his comfort zone. It makes for more exciting drama than the Doctor being omniscient. Besides, if I recall, the Tenth Doctor wasn't necessarily sceptical about religion. He's been around the universe enough times to realize that pretty much all religions are true, but the gods are usually just aliens. That's pretty much how it goes whenever he encounters a fictional alien religion. If I recall, the Tenth Doctor practically said that his mind was open to any ideas except that something could have come from before the universe. After seeing the one thing he was certain of disproven of in that episode, do you really think that he would be willing to bet his life that a cold star was impossible? The time vortex radiation baby was also highly improbable, but clearly not impossible. As was made clear in his conversation with Vastra, this incarnation of the Doctor is kind of awkward, and doesn't think about things like sex too much. It didn't occur to him until he had to sit down and think about it, that Amy and Rory probably had had sex in the TARDIS on their wedding night. After he realized that they had, he seemed to instantly realize that a baby conceived in the vortex would be different than a normal human. The new universe still has the exact same rules as the old universe. It pretty much is the old universe. The laws of time are the same, and the Doctor seems to have some understanding of how the cracks work. He started to sort of explain them to Rory in The Pandorica Opens. The Doctor has never known all the answers, and if hed did, then his life (and the show) would be no fun.Icecreamdif talk to me 03:37, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

"the worst thing that's ever happened to Doctor Who. I'd say that it's either whoever cast and wrote for Mel": Wrote for. The character was conceived as highly intelligent and competent. Bonnie Langford was cast (and took the part) on that basis -- then the scripts made Mel a screaming doughnut and ignored all the abilities she was supposed to have. The basic point is entirely right, however: the 80s episodes, especially those for the 6th Doctor and the first few for the 7th, lost the show's audience. Given time, it could have recovered (I'd say it was recovering in its last 2 seasons) but it wasn't given enough time for the audience numbers to build up again. Whatever the difficulties with the plot arcs -- the cracks, etc, -- the characters now are good and worth watching. What the 80s stories demonstrated was that the plot is irrelevant if the audience has no sympathy for the Doctor and his companions. Even if the plots are utterly brilliant, people won't watch if they don't care about the central characters. Conversely, a weak plot can still work if the central characters are good enough. The plots of some of the 1970s stories with Elisabeth Sladen as Sarah Jane Smith were fairly ropy but that didn't put people off, because the characters made the stories worth watching. There are a few stories that are remembered, decades on, for their plots but mostly it's the characters who are remembered. --89.242.70.24 11:24, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

PS: Monsters are characters, too, and a good monster can make a poor plot work, just as the Doctor and his companions can. --89.242.70.24 11:34, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. The show was certainly starting to get better with the Seventh Doctor and Ace, but in the end, taking a break probably was the best thing for the show. Of course, if the plot is completely terrible, it doesn't matter how good the characters are, but most of the 70s episodes had good enough plots, and the characters were good. For example, McCoy's Doctor and Ace were both pretty good characters, but there were quite a few stories during his time whose plots were so convoluted and nonsensical that they are hardly worth watching. I also wouldn't really describe too many of the plots from Colin Baker's time to be particularly brilliant. Maybe a few, but I can't think of any right now. Anyway, this conversation, once again, seems to be getting incredibly off topic.Icecreamdif talk to me 21:24, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Persistently getting off topic and struggling to get back is, I suspect, a sign that pretty much everything on topic that can be said has been said. --89.241.66.120 07:18, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a thought about the Cracks erasing things from time but consequences still persisting: Doesn't something similar happen at the end of TW ''End of Days? ''Because there, time gets rolled back so that Abaddon never breaks free of the Rift and rampages across Cardiff killing hundreds of people, and Rhys isn't stabbed to death. But the members of the Torchwood team still experienced all those events, and more importantly, Jack is still dead afterwards, having overloaded Abaddon with his life-force......but Abaddon never got out. That would make Jack's dying a paradox, an event that - to those locked in a 3D universe, i.e. the majority of people - has no cause. What do other people reckon? 82.2.136.93 19:58, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

um...as enthusiastic as I am about new discussions and thought provoking ideas...anything that involves Jack's existence, life/death, etc has really no point to discuss, especially as a paradox. Theories on how time work, we can still relate to our Universe...theories on a non-biological perpetual existence caused by a near-omnipotent being in a paradox when every point of its existence is already each a paradox has really no basis to discuss on...--222.166.181.99 20:47, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Each of Jack's death does have a cause, and that particular death did last a bit longer than most. End of Days was similar to the cracks in some ways, now that I think about it, but ultimately I think it was a bit more like the effect when the paradox machine was destroyed in The Sound of Drums. I haven't seen the episode in a while though, so I could be wrong. Anyway, that seemed more like history was changed than that events were just erased. We have, of course, seen simple changes in history in quite a few episodes. I can't remember, did the rest of the world forget everything about the episode, or was it just a few things like Rhys' death that were changed .If I recall, they were very vague about it in the episode.Icecreamdif talk to me 05:11, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Back on the subject of the cracks, particularly the big invasions, I think I have an explanation. Doesn't the Doctor say to Amy that she has to really remember her parents and Rory to bring them back in TBB? Perhaps people could be brought back because others wanted them to be brought back, perhaps subconciously, but nobody wanted the invasions to exist, and thats why everyone has still forgotten them? 94.72.209.209talk to me 10:35, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Didn't the Doctor say that Amy waas special because she grew up with a time crack in her wall? I got the impression that a normal person couldn't remember people back into existence.Icecreamdif talk to me 08:24, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

He did indeed say that and I got the same impression -- very strongly. "The universe pouring through [her] head every night" had given her memory a unique power, so far as restoring things was concerned. That was said many times in Series 5. Anyway, 94 is underestimating human perversity: there would be some people who (for one reason or another) thought the invasions were a "good thing" for them personally, if not for the world. There would be those who'd got their first/only chance to seem important, for example. They'd not be put off by the danger of universal destruction, for the simple reason that they'd not know about it. --89.241.72.64talk to me 18:12, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

But not all humans would have wanted to remember the invasion. Any human who had forgotten a loved one and the invasion would have subconciously remembered their loved one and forgotten the invasion because they hated it. Apart from a few nutcases who enjoyed the invasion, who would have remembered it and been denounced by the rest of society for believing in something that didn't happen. It's like with the clerics, some people remembered them and some people didn't. Hell, even the Daleks will probably have forgotten the invasion, because, quite frankly, it was a complete balls-up. 94.72.209.160talk to me 21:20, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Well that, and they all died. Still, if anyone could remember things back into existence, then it would only take a few who missed the invasion to remember it back. It's not like people can remember things out of existancce. It wouldn't even only be the crazies who wanted to remember it. Adelaide, for example, was inspired to go to Mars because of the invasion. Still, none of this really matters, because only Amy has the ability to remember things back into existence.Icecreamdif talk to me 08:50, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Adelaide, for example, also lost her parents to that invasion. And also not all the Daleks did die, Victory ofnthe Daleks proved that. Still even if Adelaide didn't remember the invasion, she would still have a little voice in the back of her head telling her to go to Mars, she just wouldn't know why. Anyway, do mean in the last part of the comment that only Amy could bring people back? If that were the case, only her parents, the clerics, Rory and the Doctor would come back after the universal reboot. A good amount of people would still be forgotten. How would they be brought back? 178.78.81.210talk to me 11:48, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't simply that only what Amy remembered was brought back. Plenty was brought back that Amy couldn't possibly have remembered because she wasn't around to know about it. The situation seems to be much more that things which Amy ought to have remembered but didn't were omitted. Where there was no reason for her to have remembered, her memory was irrelevant; where there was a reason for her to have remembered, her memory was determinative. Amy had no reason to remember Androzani Major, for example, but we know from The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe that Androzani Major is included in the "rebooted" universe. Amy ought to have remembered the Dalek invasion of The Stolen Earth/Journey's End but (as shown in Victory of the Daleks) she didn't remember that, so it wasn't included in the "rebooted" universe. River remembering the Doctor (well enough to take steps to remind Amy of him) didn't itself bring him back; Amy remembering him (with a bit of a memory jog from River's TARDIS-style diary) did bring him back. Amy's memory makes a difference only within its proper scope but only Amy's memory makes that difference. --2.96.23.109talk to me 12:23, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Amy probably did subconciously know what had been erased. She spent her whole childhood sleeping next to a crack, and it must have passed some information on to her. 178.78.81.210talk to me 11:29, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well I think it makes perfect sense that a person's impact on the universe still remains if they're erased by a crack. If their impact on the universe didn't remain then they would never have existed to become erased, so the cracks somehow had to keep traces of the person's life to ensure that they had absorbed them in the first place. 87.102.117.106talk to me 17:34, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

A bit convoluted -- but no more so than what was happening on screen. --78.146.183.1talk to me 22:32, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

A lot earlier on in the discussion, some of you were speculating what the Doctor would see if he went to see Rory being born. It's simple - he would have seen Rory. The cracks only erased what the person did in the future from the point of their erasure. For instance, if you erased Michael Jackson about halfway through his career, all his albums to that point would remain, and some would still have photos of MJ on, and MJ's name, but nobody would know who he was, listen to the music, enjoy it, like this new Michael Jackson whose albums mysteriously came from nowhere, and his popularity would grow again, but no-one would really remember anything else he did. In the future, after the erasure, a shelf full of Michael Jackson albums made in the last half of his career would have suddenly had absolutely nothing on it. Anyone who saw the shelf would immediately assume it was just extra space. 87.102.117.106talk to me 17:44, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it might be in Michael Jackson's best interests if people forgot some of what he's done in the past. Anyway, what you seem to be suggesting is that when somebody falls into a crack they basically just die and everybody forgets about them. That wouldn't eally be the same thing as being erased from time though. When the Doctor talks about the effefcts of falling through the cracks he says things like "you will never have existed." That means that they never existed in the past either. If Jackson fell into a crack, then his albums may still exist, but their existance is a paradox. He was never actually there to record them because he never existed.Icecreamdif talk to me 21:01, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the Doctor over-exaggerated? So far as I remember when he said that he was saying it to Amy who was next to a crack and he had to pressure her into getting the hell out of there. He could have meant: it will SEEM like you never existed. You have to remember Rule Number One. 87.102.117.106talk to me 22:02, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Rule 1 doesn't mean that the Doctor lies about everything. It just means that he lies sometimes. In that situationn, there was no good reason for him to lie. Just saying "Get out of there or you will die" would probably have been incentive enough. We should take the Doctor at his word unless the narrative tells us that he was lying.Icecreamdif talk to me 23:57, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, looking at Icecreamdif's second to last comment, the cracks start to make sense. The comment mentions that erasing MJ would cause a paradox, what with the albums still existing without him recording them. Remember in FAS when the Doctor mentioned more complicated events allowed cracks to close? I think the reason for this could be that more complicated events would cause more paradoxes, and that some way or other affects the cracks. 87.102.117.106talk to me 21:32, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

That may or may not be right but it's as good a theory as I've yet seen. --78.146.177.137talk to me 22:15, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

People being killed by nothing, and being born without parents has to be some of the biggest twaddle ever presented in DW. I know the series has always been full of weird and fantastical stuff, but this is just taking things too far. 82.2.136.93talk to me 21:49, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, you do know that the series is about an alien from another galaxy but is still identical to humans who travels through space and time in a small wooden box that is bigger on the inside than on the outside, and completely chaanges his appearance when he is near death, right? Compared to that, a child being born without parents makes perfect sense.Icecreamdif talk to me 23:02, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

Didn't someone once have a few words to say about people who'd happily swallow camels but couldn't choke down gnats? --78.146.184.20talk to me 12:59, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Terrific, let's have a story where the Doctor and pals go to the moon, and it's made out of green cheese. It's DW, it doesn't have to make logical sense, right? 82.2.136.93talk to me 10:45, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well he's been to the moon before, and it's not made of green cheese, so that wouldn't really work. The idea of people being born without parents does make logical sense in the world of Doctor Who. Just look at an episode like Blink. Sally Sparrow found a message behind the wallpaper that said "duck," and then the Doctor wrote it there because Sally told him to write it their because she saw it written there. There is really no good reason that it should have been written there at all in the first place, let alone have been noticed by sally right before an someone threw something at her, except that that is how time works in Doctor Who. Time travel never makes logical sense. At least, it never makes logical sense to our untrained human minds. Spend a few years at the Time Lord Academy on Gallifrey, and it will all make perfect sense.Icecreamdif talk to me 16:30, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

82: That'd be more like swallowing an apatosaurus (formerly brontosaurus). Nobody's saying DW can get away with total nonsense. Mind you, you could just about get away with the green cheese idea, if you did it in the context of something like The Mind Robber.

The point you may have missed, however, is that DW has not said people were killed by nothing and has not said people were born without parents. '''Those notions have come from contributors to this discussion. '''Furthermore, those contributors are making assumptions that they're not expressing explicitly. To take the "born without parents" idea: This isn't a description of what those present at the birth actually saw. It's a speculation about what would be seen by someone who travelled back from after the time the parents had been swallowed by a crack to the time and place of the birth. DW hasn't said or shown what such a time traveller would have seen, so DW isn't asking you to accept that. You only need to accept that if you accept the speculation, which is about what would have been shown, if anything had been shown. Personally, I don't accept the speculation. I don't have to -- it doesn't come from DW, it comes from here. --2.96.27.128talk to me 17:33, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

What the contributors here are speculating about is why and how the impact on the universe of a person seems to persist even when that person has been erased from history. However, when the Doctor said that someone swallowed by a crack would never have existed at all, he was talking to humans. It's extremely likely that "it isn't as simple as that" and what it's really like is something humans couldn't understand. In The End of Time, when he was trying to describe the time lock to Wilf, the Doctor said (something like), "It isn't a bubble but think of it as a bubble..." A human physicist would have much the same trouble talking about the behaviour of (say) electrons. It's usual to say that electrons sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves. They don't. They behave like something else entirely but laypersons can't get a handle on that something else, based on their experience of the everyday world. The real description of the things is mathematical and maths at that level is a language most of us (self included) don't understand. It's extremely likely that "never have existed at all" is as close as the humans concerned could get to understanding the situation -- especially in a hurry and under stress -- but that it's so oversimplified that it's misleading if taken literally. Thinking of electrons as being like little billiard balls helps the layperson to grasp what happens in some situations but it's hopelessly misleading if taken literally and applied to other situations. If the real world is like that (and it is), why shouldn't DW portray its world as being like that, too? --2.96.27.128talk to me 18:31, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Usually when this vesion of the Doctor uses analogies like that, he points out that what he is describing is actually nothing like the analogy (his description of the "bubble universe" being a good example). I think in this instance we have to take him literallly, especially given how many times he's repeated and described the effects of the cracks. He always says that something erased by the cracks will never have existed. We don't know whether or not Amy was born without parents, but she certainly exists without ever having had parents. What time travellers going to her birth would see would be another matter. Her parents never existed so they wouldn't be there, so who knows whee Amy would have come from. I think the answer is something along the lines that the way in which time works in Doctor Who means she doesn't have to have come from anywhere. She exists, but she was never born because her mother never existed to give birth to her. That's why Amy and the Doctor have both said, on multiple occasions, that Amy's life doesn't make any sense. Icecreamdif talk to me 18:49, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he was either using an analogy or misstating the case. All the same, when he says that someone erased by the cracks will "never have existed at all", he has to be leaving something out -- not falsifying but omitting. If the "never have existed at all" part were all there is to it, the person's impact on the universe wouldn't persist. It does. The "never have existed at all" has to be taken as true. But "it isn't as simple as that" must also be true. The results are not at all what would happen if time were completely rewritten without the person's existence. If they were, this discussion (and others) would never have happened. We have what appears to be a contradiction. But it's a consistent one. It follows a pattern. We don't know what underlies that pattern but something must. A great deal of this discussion is taken up with attempts to get more of a grip on that something. To go back, for a moment, to the electron analogy: for some aspects of electron behaviour, the "little billiard balls" model works -- it's an accurate enough description; for other aspects of electron behaviour, it doesn't work. With the erasure of people by the cracks, the situation is similar. In some respects, "never have existed at all" is accurate. In others, it very obviously is not accurate. That's why Amy's life doesn't make sense. If "never have existed at all" were a complete description, there'd be no problem with Amy's life not making sense -- she wouldn't have a life at all. As soon as her parents had been erased, she'd have ceased to exist. She continued to exist and that is what doesn't make sense, because we can't see how she could. Maybe the Doctor doesn't either and that's why he's not given a better explanation. Nevertheless, my point (directed at 82) is that nobody in any of the episodes has said that Amy was born without parents, nobody in any of the episodes has said that people were killed by nothing. Nobody in any of the episodes has said what happened. 82 said "People being killed by nothing, and being born without parents has to be some of the biggest twaddle ever presented in DW" but that hasn't been "presented in DW". It's been presented here. 82 was blaming the show for something it didn't say. I don't buy the "born without parents" idea, either, and I was pointing out that it wasn't said by the show. What has been said by the show isn't (yet) enough for me to figure out how the thing works. Sometimes, it's necessary to say, "Insufficient data. I don't know," and leave it like that -- until/unless more data becomes available. If you're not willing to say, "I don't know," when you don't know, you end up asserting nonsense. --89.240.251.197talk to me 04:46, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Baseed on what little we do know about the crackks, people who fall into them are erased from every point in space and time, but things like their children or photos are not. Rory's falling into the crack is not the same as what would have happenned if the Doctor had taken the TARDIS to Rory's birth and killed baby-Rory. Rory has never existed, but his enagement ring still exists and Amy's pphotograph of him still exists. Yes, it causes paradoxe which, by definition, don't make sense, but the cracks do seem to follow a certain pattern which have their own internal logic. Icecreamdif talk to me 15:20, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. They behave consistently and we can predict with fair confidence what will happen if a given person is swallowed by a crack. There are a few exceptions that have showed up (time travellers remembering when others don't) and even exceptions to the exceptions (even a time traveller will forget if the person was important enough to his/her life) -- but these also follow an understandable pattern. That's enough to let us say the cracks behave like a natural phenomenon. We don't fully understand it, of course, because we don't have enough observational data. The behaviour is unexplained but it's not nonsensical. --78.146.182.145talk to me 20:03, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

One more observation - before the cracks appear we have a relatively speaking stable universe to describe. After the cracks appear, the universe is unstable and marching relentlessly towards complete destruction. A universe in the chaotic throes of cracks in time and space would be an ever moving target to describe like any other chaotic system. Saying that a person falling through a crack in time would "never have existed at all" could be followed by "and shortly after the entire universe would have never existed at all." It might be impossible to define the rules of a universe after the cracks appear and the Doctor gave an explanation that would give a little reason to an otherwise indescribable moment. Or another way of saying this is, after Amy's parents pass through a crack, a time traveller could not go back in time to watch Amy's birth because that part of the universe no longer exists to someone in a part of the universe that could think about such an attempt--ANone talk to me 09:41, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Although we've not had anything in the show to confirm directly that "a time traveller could not go back in time to watch Amy's birth..." etc., it's a reasonable speculation and fits with what we do know. By that, I don't mean only that it fits with what we know of the cracks and the other effects of the TARDIS explosion (which it does) but also that it fits with other things we know about how time and time travel work. We already know that it's possible for events to become unreachable via time travel because that's what the time lock on the Time War does. We don't, in either case, know the underlying temporal physics, so we can't know how similar or different the mechanisms are, but we do know that that particular effect is possible. There are situations in the show's universe where "you can't get there from here". --2.96.29.31talk to me 16:23, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

In "City of the Daleks" humanity was destroyed by the Daleks in the 1960s, which should have erased Amy instantly - but it didn't. The Doctor later explains that time hasn't quite caught up with her yet, suggesting that even in the whole entire timeline there is a delay when things are changed before the affects are felt in other parts of it. There's nothing to deny that the same doesn't happen with the Cracks. When Rory was erased his impact remained for a while, but possibly would have started to fade away after time had managed to catch up. I'd guess the Cracks somehow stop them from being born, but the timeline takes a while to realise what has happened. When it does, it starts by erasing events at the beginning of the persons life and moves on from there. 94.72.237.220talk to me 20:17, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

That sounds plausible. The Doctor did once compare changing history to Back to the Future (which is almost certainly not a perfect analogy), and in the Back to the Future movies history almost never changed instantly after an event was changed. It took Marty almost the entire movie to start fading away after he stopped his parents from meeting. Not that it really has anything to do with Doctor Who, but there was also an episode of Star Trek, where a time agent didn't show up until a few months after history had been changed because it had taken that long for the effects to catch up to the future. It makes about as much sense as anything involving the cracks in Doctor Who.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:48, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

What about the state of the Universe in Series 5? I think some consideration should be given to the fact that in a meta-narrative sense of the time, the future TARDIS exploded "before" the series started; the entire Series 5 takes place in a Universe in a state of being erased with distorted laws of physics, so anything within it is suppose to be timey wimey. --222.166.181.185talk to me 21:53, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

The Doctor Who univese is timey wimey at the best of times, so it's not surprising that things maake even less sense with the cracks all over the place.Icecreamdif talk to me 22:02, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the idea that Amy still existed after her parents were swallowed by the crack only because time hadn't caught up yet is that her parents were gone by the time she was 7 years old and she was still around at the age of 21. That's not proof that "time hadn't caught up yet" is wrong but it does make it seem unlikely. --89.240.242.57talk to me 07:25, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Do we know that Amy's parents were already erased when she was 7. It seems likely since she was alone in the house, but she did remember that her mom put faces in apples. Still, I think its much more likely that Amy was just never erased even though her parents were. The Doctor and Amy have both said many times that Amy's life doesn't make any sense.Icecreamdif talk to me 19:02, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Icecreamdif: Amelia Pond, aged 7, to the Doctor (in The Eleventh Hour, over fish fingers and custard), "I don't have a mum and dad, only an aunt." They were gone by the time she was 7. We don't know exactly when they were erased, so it might have been quite recent. She was alone in the house because the aunt was out. You don't need to keep repeating that "the Doctor and Amy have both said many times that Amy's life doesn't make any sense," because nobody's saying otherwise. The point is that, if Amy was still around at 21 only because time hadn't caught up yet, as 94 suggested, time was being extremely slow in catching up. --2.101.56.57talk to me 19:24, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

I forgot that Amy was already an orphan when she was 7. I guess she just remembered the apple for the same reason that she was still sad about Rory later in the season. Anyway, I thik that its much more likely that Amy just wasn't erased along with her parents than that time was slow in catching up, but its not impossible that time was just really slow in catching up. With something like time, its hard to say how fast orslow it is, or even if it is fast or slow. Icecreamdif talk to me 20:09, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

It reacted PDQ to River managing not to shoot (what she thought was) the Doctor -- but that was a "fixed point" being changed, so it might be a special case. However, the one thing the Doctor never hinted at, to anyone, was surprise that Amy still existed. He noted and remarked on lots of other oddities but not that. --2.101.56.57talk to me 20:32, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Time rarely works the same from one episode to the next. That's not too surprising with a show that's been going for almost 50 years. Anyway, by the time that the Doctor pointed out that Amy's parents had been erased in The Big Bang, there had already been plenty of evidence that people's effects on the universe weren't erased when they were. Rory's engagement ring had still been in the TARDIS, River had found a picture of Rory in Amy's house, the Byzantium had still managed to crash, and the Earth was the only thing in the entire universe. The Doctor had even given a little speech to Rory explaining that in The Pandorica Opens. At this point, he really wouldn't be too surprised that Amy could exit without parents.Icecreamdif talk to me 21:15, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not. In The Big Bang, though, he did offer an explanation of why the Earth was still there. That explanation wasn't exactly "time hasn't caught up yet" but it was very similar. He didn't offer an explanation of why the consequences of things persisted after the things had been erased by the cracks. Of course, nobody actually asked about that, which is itself a bit odd. We may be back to the fact (previously noted) that there seems to be something about the process of erasure that stops people noticing the inconsistencies. That seems characteristic of the cracks but not of other ways people or things can be removed from existence. --2.101.56.57talk to me 21:39, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

As annoying as Moffat's Cracks are, I have to admit, they are not entirely without precident in DW. In Image of the Fendahl, the Time Lords excised the Fifth Planet from time, and yet the Fendahl still existed (if I understand that correctly). And in Last of the Time Lords, the Master's paradox machine enabled the Toclafane to destroy their ancestors without having their own "present" negated. 82.2.136.93talk to me 14:57, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

The common factor in all these is Time Lord technology -- The TARDIS explosion causing the cracks, Time Lords removing a planet, and the Master converting a TARDIS into a Paradox Machine. --89.242.65.125talk to me 15:24, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

The Doctor offerred an explanation for why the Earth wasn't erased along with everything else, (it was a similar explanation for why TOMTIT didn't effect things in the lab), but he didn't give one for how the Earth can exist and life can evolve on the planet if here is literally nothing else in the universe. We have to assume that the reason that the Earth still existed, and that life and human culture was relatively unchanged (there were some changes, but considering that the entire universe was erased, penguins in the Nile is relatively minor) was for the same reason that Amy was able to exist without parents. The rest of the universe still existed, but much of its effect on the Earth remained.Icecreamdif talk to me 05:30, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Icecreamdif: Do you mean "The rest of the universe no longer existed, but much of its effect on the Earth remained"? (If it still existed, there'd be nothing odd about its effect remaining.) --89.242.78.226talk to me 07:23, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. I should have proofread what I wrote.Icecreamdif talk to me 15:08, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Icecreamdif: I really don't want to sound like your (or, indeed, anyone's) mother but you've said that before. I think the last time it was a stray "not" -- either one that shouldn't have been where it was or one that wasn't where it should have been. Ordinary typos are one thing; saying the direct opposite of what you mean is another. (On the bright side, at least you know someone's reading what you've written -- even if you're not.)

Back to the topic: Yes, most of the effect did remain, albeit with minor oddities like tropical penguins. As I was saying, the examples cited of things being erased in various ways but their effects -- or at least some of their effects -- remaining are all examples of Time Lord technology. Even TOMTIT was, since it was the Master who had modified it to allow it to work through time. I wonder if anyone can think of an example of the same kind of thing where we know for sure no Time Lord technology was involved. --78.146.183.182talk to me 17:07, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to see that somebody appaently remembers everything that I've written on here. Anyway, even TOMTIT isn't exactly the same circumsance as the cracks and the other few examples we have on here. TOMTIT could speed up and slow down time, and could be used for time travel (it was a little like the machine in City of Death, or how it was supposed to work), but it couldn't erase things like the cracks did. I only brought it up because the Doctor's explanation of standing under a fountain without getting wet was kind of like the Doctor's reason for why Earth wasn't erased. I can't think of any other examples where something was just erased from time. There have been plenty of times when people travel back in time and change things, but that's not the same as erasing something from time. The closest I can think of is Invasion of the Dinosaurs, but that failed anyway, and presumably would have changed the future. Pyramids of Mars also showed that history would change if the Doctor failed to prevent an alien invasion (sort of like what the Doctor described to Martha in The Shakespeare Code), but I don't think that any other episodes dealt with something beinig erased from history, with or without Time Lord technology.Icecreamdif talk to me 19:59, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if I remember everything you've written. The way these things work, I'll probably remember mostly the things you'd rather were forgotten. The Doctor's explanation sounds a bit like the one he gave in Last of the Time Lords for the people aboard Valiant remembering "the Year that Never Was", in slightly different words. One episode I can remember did deal with someone (3 someones, I think) being erased from history. At the end of The War Games (1969), the main culprits were erased -- but that was by the Time Lords, so doesn't really help. And we didn't get to see anything that really indicated what happened as a result, which makes it doubly unhelpful. Like you, I can't think of other examples. --2.96.27.91talk to me 22:55, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

I think we already discussed the year that never was on here, and the paradox machine was TimeLord tech anyway. I thought about mentioning the War Lord and his friends, but decided against it because of the reasons you gave, and because their fate was left a bit ambiguous. From what I remember, the Time Lords just said something like "it will be as if you never existed," which could mean that they were erased from history, or it could just mean that sincetheir bodies are being completely obliterated and their homeworld is in a forcefield, it is metaphorically like they never existed. For a show that is completely about time travel, there haven't been too many timey wimey plots until recently. Moffat seems to like those plots more than any of the show's other writers. Even among the handful ofolder episodes that there are that explore time travel more closely than just as a means for the Doctor to get to an interesting location, most of them involve the Time Lords. I guess Turn Left and the Sarah Jane episodes with the Trickster are the closest that we'll get to how one would expect being erased from history to work, and even in those episodes the people weren't erased but just died earlier than they were suppossed to (or later than they were supposed to). The Trickster doesn't use Time Lord tech, and when he or his brigade cause people to die before their time, events change as well as memories. That's probably the closest that we're going to get.Icecreamdif talk to me 01:18, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

The Trickster and his brigade are the only others I can think of, too, and I ought to have thought of them before. As you say, when they change things, the changes seem to work much more the way you'd expect. A partial exception was The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith, where the guests were still at the wedding and noticed the absence of the groom, after he revoked his agreement with the Trickster. Some effects had lingered -- a wedding had been arranged, people had turned up -- but the disappearance of the groom was noticed and remarked on. That's quite unlike the result of someone being erased by the cracks, where nobody (except time travellers) notices that there are inconsistencies. --2.96.27.91talk to me 03:39, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm surprised that I didn't think of the Trickster when I was listing off timey wimey episodes earlier. I guess my mind was more on Classic-Who. Anyway, I'm going to need to rewatch The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith at some point, because I only saw that one once and that was a few years ago, but the effects in Turn Left and Whatever Happenned to Sarah Jane Smith are exactly what you would logically expect to happen in those circumstances, and are pretty much the opposite of how the cracks work. In Turn Left, nobody (except Rose) remembered anything the Doctor did after The Runaway Bride, and the universe changed accordingly. In Whatever Happenned to Sarah Jane Smith, everyone (except Maria) forgot everything about Sarah Jane's life after she was about 13, and the universe changed somewhat, although the invsions that she prevented still didn't happen. I guess the fact that the Slitheen, Gorgons, Bane, and whoever else didn't destroy the world in that episode is the closest we have to a non-Time Lord tech related example of an erased person's effect on history remaining. Even in that episode, Sarah Jane's effect on the universe didn't remain as much as characters erased by the cracks. Luke still either never existed, or never became more than the Bane's archetype, Mr. Smith doesn't seem to have been made into a computer, Maria and Clyde aren't friends, etc.Icecreamdif talk to me 04:07, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

In Whatever Happened to Sarah Jane Smith, the Trickster explicitly said that he had prevented the invasions himself. He told Sarah Jane (I think Maria was there, too) that he was "saving" the Earth for the meteorite because it was motiveless and, therefore, more chaotic than intentional invasions. Both Whatever Happened to... and The Wedding of... are worth another look because they show how the Trickster's approach differs quite significantly from the effects of the cracks. The other "Trickster changing time" story is The Temptation of Sarah Jane Smith but I don't think it adds any information that's particularly useful here. It does, of course, add a bit of confirmation of the Trickster's effects. --78.146.183.23talk to me 15:49, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Off topic, so I'll keep it separate. The Trickster stories in SJA are pretty good evidence against two opinions I've encountered a lot (mainly from people who've not actually watched the episodes they're talking about): 1. RTD doesn't do "timey-wimey" stuff, the way Moffat does, and 2. SJA is simplistic "kids' stuff". My opinion: He does and it isn't. --78.146.183.23talk to me 15:56, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

I don't watch Sarah Jane much, mainly because they haven't aired more than the first season where I live. As I said, theTrickster is different from the cracks, but he's pretty much the closest thing that we've got to them. When he said that he prevented the invasions, does that mean that he physically sent someone to, for example, stop the Bane distributing Bubble Shock, or does it mean that he altered time in such a way that the invaions just never happenned. I don't suppose he specified, but the method he used would be relevant to this discussion. I guess Temptation of Sarah Jane doesn't really add anything, because his plan wasn't too different from Whatever Happenned to Sarah Jane (get someone to change a decision and change the past). If I recall, it was pretty much the same story as Father's Day, but instead of nonsensical flying monsters coming out of nowhere due to her changing history, an established monster gains the power to take over the world due to her parents not dying. I guess it makes a little bit more sense. Anyway, in both episodes, the present changed when the past was changed, which is quite different fom how the cracks work. The more recent comment directly above mine conflicted with my edit conflicted with mine so I'll respond to that now. I don't think that anybody's claiming that RTD never did timey wimey episodes. Even the classic series did timey wimey episodes occassionally. Moffat just seems to use them much more than any of the other writers. Moffat's first season featured an arc that was pretty much nothing but timey wimey stu (the length of this discussion shows how complicated it was ), and the entire River Song arc is pretty timey wimey, but it got even more riiculously so in his second season. Sarah Jane has always been simplistic "kid's stuff" compared to Doctor Who. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. It is targetted at kids, and plenty of kids shows are pretty good. Som of their plots, such as the Trickster plots, can be complicated, and some of their plots can even be emotional. The show is still very much geared towards its target audience (children), and thus can often seem childish. I might be a bit biased because the season that I am most familiar with is the first one, because it aired in the US, and thatt was easily the show's weakest season. If I just judged Tochwood by its first season, or Doctor Who by its first season (in the 60s), I probably wouldn't consider them to be among my favorite shows either. I have seen the episodes after the first season of Sarah Jane and the show definetly did get better. The final season was looking like it would be pretty good before Sladen died. Still, despite its strengths, the show was very childish, and it is certainly not of the same quality as Doctor Who and Torchwood. Of course, none of this is too relevant to the cracks, and everyone disagrees about which shows and episodes they like, so let's try to get back on topic.Icecreamdif talk to me 16:17, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

The Trickster just said he'd stopped the invasions, not how. --78.146.183.23talk to me 16:24, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. That could mean that his time travel works like the cracks, and the invasions were still stopped by Sarah Jane even though Sarah Jane wasn't around to stop them, or it could mean that he used his powers to either prevent the invasions from happenning or to manipulate others into stopping them or something.Icecreamdif talk to me 18:25, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Without listening to the dialogue again, I can't be certain of the wording but I got the impression he was saying Sarah Jane definitely did not do the stopping in any way. He was answering a question about what had happened when Sarah Jane wasn't there to stop them and he said he had done that himself. I don't recall anything that said whether he used his powers to stop them directly or through others or, indeed, a mixture of the two. The only firm point was that he did the stopping and she didn't. --78.146.183.23talk to me 18:54, February 10, 2012 (UTC)