EpicMeltDown

This user has not updated recently.

99 512 19 2
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

EpicMeltDown's forum posts

Avatar image for epicmeltdown
EpicMeltDown

99

Forum Posts

512

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By EpicMeltDown

@Afro_Warrior: Thank you. Now I see it. I think I was so focused on Wonder Woman that I missed the escrima sticks.

Avatar image for epicmeltdown
EpicMeltDown

99

Forum Posts

512

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By EpicMeltDown

"There hasn't been any mention of Donna Troy but it appears she could be on the cover to EARTH TWO #1 (along with Superboy dressed as Superman and Dick Grayson dressed as Batman)."

I'm not a Donna Troy fan so maybe there's some obvious visual cue that I missed but how does it 'appear' that this might be her? And likewise, the assertion that this is Conner and Dick? Is there some other article where that's alluded to? If someone could point me toward a link illuminating the matter I would be eternally (in a temporary sense) grateful. :)

Avatar image for epicmeltdown
EpicMeltDown

99

Forum Posts

512

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By EpicMeltDown

I just started a new drinking game! While reading this thread take a drink every time a post complaining about Power Girl's costume includes a variation of the phrase, "and it's not because of the cleavage".

Avatar image for epicmeltdown
EpicMeltDown

99

Forum Posts

512

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By EpicMeltDown

@Jake Fury: No, you get awards for having gay characters in comics who are presented in a 3 dimensional way rather then resorting to tokenism and stereotypes.

Avatar image for epicmeltdown
EpicMeltDown

99

Forum Posts

512

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for epicmeltdown
EpicMeltDown

99

Forum Posts

512

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By EpicMeltDown

@HackedLife: If you can't apply some degree of logic to fictional stories then what are we all doing here? :)

Avatar image for epicmeltdown
EpicMeltDown

99

Forum Posts

512

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By EpicMeltDown

@benhoot: I see the point as you and the article described. My intention was to refute the logic behind it. If the future world exists for Peter to see it then why wouldn't Peter's future self and actions also exist. He may be looking at the future then but certainly he will continue to exist in the future and make decisions. The entire future world 24 hours later is full of numerous people who've made numerous decisions. Why not Peter's future decision also? IE: Going back in time and existing during the previous 24 hours. I think ultimately it comes down to how you view time and travel with in it. I think that's where we're really in disagreement.

Avatar image for epicmeltdown
EpicMeltDown

99

Forum Posts

512

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By EpicMeltDown

I don't see a problem with Back to the Future 2's showing of Marty visiting his children in the future. In a linear non time travel existence you can say: I can't be in two places at once. If I am at work I am not at home. But to try to impose those same rules on time travel is a bit short sighted. If I travel 24 hours into the future then I didn't exist during those 24 hours? Why? Without time traveling I can be said to exist in multiple times at once. If you want to break it down to years without looking at the future then I exist in 30 different years. So for me to exist now doesn't diminish my existence 20 years ago 10 years ago or 5 minutes ago. So it's perfectly possible for Peter Parker to exist now and 24 hours from now and 10 hours from now. Now if you're going with a present centric version of time (IE: the most important moment is always the present) then the implication is that different rules apply to right now versus any time in the future or in the past. But what is 'present' is too subjective to adequately define. When Peter steps through the portal is 24 hours later the present or is the moment he came from the present? The point with this is that Peter is moving through time and will continue to do so. His actions in what we think of as the present are no more important then his actions in the past or in the future. So 'present' (by our reckoning) Peter Parker may be 24 hours in the future but future Peter Parker will be stepping back through the portal and continue to exist during those 24 hours in Peter's personal future. So there is no good reason to assume that he wouldn't exist during the 24 hours that present Peter seems to have "skipped over".

All that having been said, I think that the notion of changing time is ridiculous and prefer time travel stories that employ the Novikov self-consistency principle. And also, while time travel to the past is still the stuff of fiction, time travel to the future is absolutely real. Our space program has shown that gravity and one's speed can serve to warp space time enough for a person to skip over moments in time relative to another point in space time. The closer you get to the speed of light the more space time is warped. You would experience time normally but upon finishing your journey you would discover that time had passed more slowly for you relative to those who had not been traveling. That is what astronauts experience while traveling in fast moving rockets into space. The effect only allows them to travel into the future by a few fractions of a second but it's measurable. Traveling further into the future is just a matter of speed and energy to maintain that speed.

Avatar image for epicmeltdown
EpicMeltDown

99

Forum Posts

512

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By EpicMeltDown

"Recent developments suggest that Damian's time may be limited as well." What recent developments suggest that? The article linked to in that sentence gives a brief history of Damian's character but there isn't a single shred of evidence in the article suggesting that Damian is going to A) Die B) Quit being Robin or C) Just disappear to Grant Morrison's limbo. All the linked to article says is another vague unverified sentence "Damian is a tough little kid and has that 'love-to-hate' vibe going for him but it looks like there's some writing on the wall and that writing doesn't look too favorable for him." What writing on the wall? That Bruce and Damian don't have a great relationship? I'm not disputing that Damian may not be Robin for long, I'm disputing that you have presented any evidence that would lead to that conclusion. There may be a bounty on Damian's head but honestly what character in the DC Universe hasn't had a bounty on their head at some point. That's hardly proof of Damian's impending demise. Grant Morrison while talking about his upcoming Batman: Leviathan series at San Diego Comic-Con did say, "Batman: Leviathan is about Bruce and Damian though, and you will cry and cry and cry." Certainly, that could be considered proof that Damian is no long for this world. However, if your opinion is based on anything tangible you're not sharing it with us.