Talk:The Impossible Planet

What is the planet?

OH MY GOD, IT'S GALLIFREY!!!111 *ahem* I mean, what do you people think? :) Phil 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not the slightest chance - this is R'lyeh! (And in a way, a misuse of Talk Pages) Niffux 10:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, a planet that is 'impossible' not because it's hell-like but because it shouldn't even exist, the fact the TARDIS has no recollection of it at all and it's right next to a massive black hole (conveniently able to be harnessed for energy already). Phil 14:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the Doctor's reaction to it in the trailer my money's definately on the black hole being the Eye of Harmony. MartinMcCann 19:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How much money would that be, then? Given Russell T. Davies' previously displayed attitude towards Gallifrey, I don't think that we're likely to delve into its mythology or get further details of the Time War any time soon. The Eye of Harmony in particular seems to me like the sort of detail unlikely to be mentioned — remember that Gallifrey hasn't even been named as such on the new series so far!

Personally, I think a planet in orbit around a black hole is impossible enough to justify the Doctor's reaction without bringing Gallifrey into it. But I may well have egg on my face next week! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the fact that the black hole is commented on as being able to be 'harnessed for energy', unless somebody had already thought to make it be so already? Besides, regenerations weren't called regenerations until the Doctor's third, still made them regenerations. So if the name 'Gallifrey' hasn't been said just yet, the planet could still be Gallifrey and could be named later in the two-parter. Phil 04:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Where's the reference to the black hole being harnessed for energy? In the TARDISODE, the woman in the suit tells the captain to bring back the power source which keeps the planet from falling into the black hole. Was that what you were thinking of? Keeping a planet in an impossible orbit is somewhat different from harnessing the power of a black hole and using it for time travel.

Perhaps I wasn't being clear in my comment about the name "Gallifrey". I mentioned the fact that Gallifrey hasn't yet been named as an indication of the current production team's attitude towards Doctor Who continuity and its uses. They're going to respect what's gone before, and not contradict it, but they're not going to have storylines, or even dialogue, that depend on prior knowledge of specific classic Doctor Who stories. I think that the notion of the black hole being the Eye of Harmony is the sort of thing that's great for fan-oriented media (e.g. Big Finish audios or the former novel lines), but not the television series, which is aimed at a wider audience.

"But what about School Reunion?" (I hear you cry). Well, I think that the Great British Public can be counted on to remember that Sarah Jane Smith was one of the Doctor's companions, and that the Doctor also used to travel around with a robot dog called K-9. The notion of finding out what happened to these characters is something that a general audience can care about. I just don't think that the current production team would believe that a general audience would care about the Eye of Harmony; after all, the guff about the EoH in the TV movie is widely regarded as one of its weakest parts.

Anyway, we shouldn't really be discussing the episode on this talk page anyway — the talk pages are for discussion of what should be in the article, not discussion of the article's subject. I suggest we wait and see what the show reveals. We've both stated our opinions, and we'll know which of us is right (or at least have more solid evidence to argue with) in six days. Looking forward to it! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it impossible for anything to be in orbit around a black hole? Just because it's a black hole doesn't magically make it change the way gravity works. Hell, we're all orbiting a super-massive black hole in the center of the galaxy and we're doing just fine. And, if the black hole is big enough, it actually would be okay to sit inside the event horizon and not notice anything different. The only difference between a black hole and any equivalent mass star is a fully exposed event horizon for the former. Our sun could turn into a black hole right now, and the only thing we're notice is the sky got dark. --NuShrike 11:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's impossible because matter that's being sucked into the black hole (several solar systems worth) forms a constant current that should be sweeping the planet along with it. Plus the black hole is gaining mass at a phenomenal rate such that any stable orbit by a small planetoid that close is impossible. DonQuixote 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We're actually arguing over the fact that the Doctor's, and others, dialogue was so bad as to confuse the layman and suggest that any stable orbit around any black hole is impossible when a simple "we're too close to the event horizon", or "there's too much current" as you have stated would have really sufficed. NuShrike 19:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Gallifrey/Eye of Harmony theory has rather been exploded, don't you? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How could it possibly be Gallifrey?, wouldnt the doctor say so in the episode? and plus it was destroyed so... Maxtitan (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ood

Am I the only one who's reminded of Cthulhu by these things?

Feel free to read Niffux's suggestion of R'lyeh above. ;p Phil 01:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope - I'm a player adn 'keeper' of Cthulhu - and the writing on the seal and plot of this feels very much like a cthulhu game - wouldn't be surprised if Lovecraft has his influence here somewhere...

Also - what do people think about the overtones of the Bible being used here - accesses primal fear - but imagining that the people on the ship might be of different religions or philosophies (not just due to appearing to be from different countries/origins but also, how far into the future is this supposed to be?) Crescent 18:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The link for the Ood is wrong. It leads to the top of the monsters page and should lead to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_monsters_and_aliens#Ood Only I'm not sure how to edit it as such.

This was fixed by Khaosworks at 12:54, 6 June 2006 Khaosworks. Liyster 12:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat reminded of the Mind Flayers in D&D. Mainly after the Beast takes control of them though... --130.194.13.104 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Chris Evans

Does "Chris Evans was rumoured to be playing the part of the Devil in this two-part story. However, David Tennant confirmed on the Christian O'Connell Breakfast Show on Virgin Radio that Evans will not be appearing in the episode." mean that Chris Evans won't appear in Impossible Planet but could appear in The Satan Pit, or that he isn't appearing in the two parter at all? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that means he won't show up at all. I'm only going by the wording of the statement though and don't have anything to back it up. Phil 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Plothole?

I thought Rose gave her Superphone to Mickey at the end of Age of Steel? The_B 19:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe she got another one. 86.132.164.32

I forget where it was said, but wasn't Rose's phone updated to a new model for season 2? If that's true, maybe she keeps the original as a spare and gave him that one --HellCat86 21:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That was me, in the Rise of the Cybermen article, and later the List of Doctor Who items article. The phone in this episode - although you could only see the back of it - was still the Samsung D500 (the same model as the one she supposedly gave Mickey) -you can tell because the old model, a Nokia 3200 doesn't have any sort of moving mechanism, whereas when Rose "picks up" the phone to answer the message, the phone clearly has a "jackknife" motion... The_B 22:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing cast member

Whats the name of the girl that gets killed and how plays her shes not in the cast?

Scooti Manista — MyAnna Buring: she is in the list

Mr Jefferson gives her full name as Scootori Manista; "Scooti" seems to be her nickname. Snowflake Sans Crainte 10:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Physics

I'm not sure whether this is worthy of a note or not. The episode talks about how it's impossible for a planet to be in orbit around a black hole. But in real physics, there's nothing at all wrong with that. A planet can orbit a black hole just as easily as any other star. How it would have survived the star's transition to being a black hole is another question, but given that it is already in orbit, there's nothing to prevent it staying in orbit. For example, if the Sun were to turn into a black hole right now, we on Earth would not notice any difference, gravitationally speaking. OTOH, the black hole in the episode is obviously bloomin' enormous, as it is sucking in many solar systems. So it's growing. That could, just about, be the basis for saying that planetary orbits are unstable. As the black hole gains mass, the planet's orbital distance from the hole should decrease. --DudeGalea 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But the planet could well be orbiting INSIDE the event horizon and it was said that the planet generates a gravity field allowing a space craft to fly there without getting sucked into the black hole

This physics is confusing (I am not a science-boffin), so perhaps someone could put it in simple language so that stupid people like me can understand. ;) I have heard of a geostationary orbit before, once. Isn't Charon's orbit of Pluto geostationary? If so, how does the planet's orbit of the black hole in this story differ? Please explain, as I really don't understand Wikipedia's own definition of the terms. RobbieG 08:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

no geostationary orbit specifically refers to a stationary orbit over earth a stationary orbit over mars is an areostationary orbit

Centric classifications

Galactocentric orbit: An orbit about the center of a galaxy. The Sun follows this type of orbit about the galactic center of the Milky Way. Heliocentric orbit: An orbit around the Sun. In our Solar System, all planets, comets, and asteroids are in such orbits, as are many artificial satellites and pieces of space debris. Moons by contrast are not in a heliocentric orbit but rather orbit their parent planet. Geocentric orbit: An orbit around the planet Earth, such as the Moon or artificial satellites. Areocentric orbit: An orbit around the planet Mars, such as moons or artificial satellites. Lunar orbit (also selenocentric orbit): An orbit around the Earth's moon. so by definition geostationary orbit over a black hole is impossible because a black hole isnt earth i don't know the math enough to tell you if a stationary orbit over a black hole is possible but definitely not a geostationary one: User:Goku90504@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.196.206 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

When a satellite goes around the Earth, the amount of time it takes to complete one orbit depends on how high up it is. If it's quite close (like the space shuttle), then it takes about 90 minutes or so. If it's far away (like the moon) it takes a month. By putting your satellite at the right height above the Earth, you can choose the exact amount of time it'll take for the satellite to go round the Earth.

If you put your satellite at exactly the right height (it's about 23000 miles), it'll take exactly 1 day to orbit the Earth. But as the Earth is spinning once per day, the satellite will stay above the same point on the Earth's surface all the time. This is really useful, because it means that your TV satellite dish doesn't have to move to follow the satellite. Just point it in the right direction, and bolt it down.

Now, when the episode says that they're in geostationary orbit around a black hole, it's a bit odd. A black hole doesn't really have a surface. It does have spin, however, so you could calculate a geostationary orbit. But I don't think it really has any particular physical significance. (Like on Earth, there's nothing physically special about geostationary orbits; they're just useful for us.)

My suspicion is that the writer doesn't really know much about the physics, and is just using the black hole as a cool plot device. Fair enough; I don't think we want Who to turn into a science lesson. It's entertainment, after all. (If it can get people interested in physics, even through slightly dodgy means, that's a bonus.) --DudeGalea 09:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! RobbieG 11:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If the planet happens to be orbiting above a fixed "point" and matching the spin of the black hole, it's not unreasonable for the characters to refer to that as "geostationary". And perhaps that should be impossible... —Whouk (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you could calculate a geostationary orbit, and it would make sense to describe it as such (though the notion of a 'fixed' point would be an abstract one, derivable only from the fact that you know what the spin is, rather than from anything physical about the 'surface').

Actually, now you've got me thinking. A black hole without a companion star would be spinning very fast, I think (due to conservation of angular momentum as it collapsed). The height of a geostationary orbit would be spectacularly low, almost on the surface. Aw heck, this hole is ridiculously big anyway; let's just say that physics in the Whoniverse is a bit different! :-) --DudeGalea 15:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

But maybe that's why the Doctor says it's impossible ;-) —Whouk (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm boring everyone to death, but the black hole orbit thing is impossible. This hasn't been put into a plain statement, but I know a fair bit about black holes and if a planet is in range to orbit, it would not orbit it, instead the planet would be pulled into the balck hole. Faster than normal, because the planet's own gravity would pull the planet towards the black hole once the black hole was in the planet's range. Darkwarlock999

Sorry, but you're wrong. If the sun were to turn into a black hole now, why would it attract the Earth with any greater force than it does as a star? Its mass would still be the same, and the distance between the center of mass of the Sun and Earth would still be the same, so we would still feel the same force. Becoming a black hole simply doesn't change the gravitational profile at a distance.

If what you are saying was actually true, then binary star systems containing a black hole could not exist as the companion star would get sucked in straight away. And yet we have good evidence that such systems do exist, and persist for long periods, and as far as I'm aware, no evidence at all that Newton's and Einstein's theories are so fundamentally wrong, as you are implicitly suggesting. --DudeGalea 17:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, gravitational collapse does change the gravitational profile. Since gravity is a function of mass and mass is also related to density, the collapse of a single solar mass into a black hole requires packing the same mass of the Sun into a region, say, a couple of kilometres across. That would increase the gravitational pull tremendously. If Earth maintained the same distance from the Sun as it did before its collapse into a black hole, then yes, we would be drawn inward.

If the gravitational profile does not change, then there would really be no creation of a "black hole" as such, since light would continue to be able to escape. A black hole, by definition, is a mass which is so compressed that it generates enough gravity to prevent even light from escaping, creating the event horizon that is the boundary of the perceived "black hole". Binary systems can have one partner that is a black hole, but some form of equilibrium must be reached. I remember seeing a drawing or an artist's conception of a system where stellar matter is being drawn from one star into its neighbouring black hole. Slowly, perhaps, but surely. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Key words: at a distance. Yes, of course the gravitational profile changes locally. But at a distance, say the distance of the Earth from the Sun, there is simply no real difference. Really, this isn't controversial.

You talk of matter being drawn from one star into a neighboring black hole. Yes, that happens. In fact, it's because of that very process that we know quite a bit about black holes. But that has nothing to do with the star being a black hole per se. It happens with lots of binary stars. The conditions required for it are interesting, but it requires that one of the stars fills its "Roche Lobe", so that the matter 'feels' a stronger pull from the other star. This matter then falls into orbit around the other star, and forms an accretion disk. If the accretor is a black hole, then we get some information about the black hole that would otherwise not be available to us. (As Holly said, they're black, so how are you supposed to see them?)

Yes, if the Sun collapsed to a black hole, the gravitational pull at its surface would be much greater. But that's because the surface is now much closer to the center of mass. Any point outside the original surface of the Sun wouldn't notice any difference. The Earth would stay in orbit just as it is. Again, this isn't controversial. Run the equations, and try it for yourself. --DudeGalea 17:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, if you don't believe me, have a look at this NASA page: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html . --DudeGalea 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. DavidFarmbrough 11:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ahem

The Milky Way seems to do all right orbiting a whole cluster of super massive black holes without falling in--70.107.115.168 18:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a way of thinking about black holes (although it's a little imprecise--even if it's the most used pop-science illustration). Think of a funnel as a model of the gravitational field, the wide part of the funnel is where gravity is 'weak' and the narrow part is where gravity is 'strong'. Draw a circle around the funnel at about mid-height. This circle represents the surface of a star. Draw another circle higher up; this represents the orbit of a planet (you can tilt the orbit and make it an ellipse if you want). Now below the surface of the star draw another circle (about half way--we're not making an exact model, mind you). This is the Schwarzschild radius which defines the upper limit of a black hole. What that means is that if the star starts collapsing in on itself and it passes that limit it turns into a black hole. So what happens if the star turns into a black hole? Surprisingly, nothing much--move the surface of the star up and down and it really doesn't affect the orbiting planet (although if you move the surface too far up you engulf the planet and bye-bye planet). Moving the surface line up is like the star turning into a red giant or turning supernova, etc. Moving the surface line down is like the star collapsing into a dwarf or neutron star. Go below the Schwarzschild radius and the star turns into a black hole. Now if the star/black hole starts sucking in mass the funnel gets larger (more mass equals more gravity), the immediate result of which is that the planet's orbit is affected. Hope that helps. DonQuixote 14:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends how close the planet is to the black hole. If the planet was a long way away from the black hole, then there wouldn't be any problem orbiting it for exactly the reason you (and everyone else) has given. But, if the radius orbit was less than $3{Gm \over c^{2}}$, then the planet would have to be moving sideways faster than the speed of light. Before anyone says, no this is not the event horison — that's $a{Gm \over c^{2}}$ with a=2 for Schwarzschild and a=1 for maximal Kerr: Reference: Black hole#Mathematical theory. Also, as an aside, how fast would a planet loose energy to gravitational radiation if it was that sort of distance? Whitepaw 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In case you were wondering who made the fourth note, I did. I'm a regular reader of Wikipedia, especially seeing the "Doctor Who" episode entries (they come in faster than at Outpost Gallifrey or the Doctor Who Reference site). I have been interested in black holes since the age of 6 (17 years now), and I'd thought I'd contribute. Sorry if I was inconvenient. I hope to contribute more to your articles. KR, 4:36PM, 8th/June/2006, Eastern Standard Time Australia.203.45.245.157 06:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

other physics

Anyone notice Maxwell's Equations scrawled on the lunch table while the Doctor and Rose talk?

Well spotted! I missed that. You're right, there they are. --DudeGalea 21:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I really missed mentioning of Maxwell's Equations in the Notes, as this was most surprising to me besides the "Doom sound". But why the 29A weren't they written correctly in the first place- the last equation (which deals about the change of electric current yielding a magnetic field) has a correction. Also, what's written on the opposite side of the table- two lines might represent parts of the integral representation of Maxwell's formulas along with some arrows towards a $\kappa$, but the rest might be specific boundary conditions related to this episode? Finally, there are three words written on a spot closest to the wall, which most probably won't be readable until the series is released in higher resolution. r@129.13.72.153 21:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation

OK, revisiting the whole TARDIS translation thing. The TARDIS can translate writing: discuss....--86.27.60.124 21:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As I didn't see the first few minutes (grrr) HOW does the TARDIS 'see'the writing? I know that there is a link telepathically/psychically/physically connecting Doctor to TARDIS and that, also, Rose has been updated as she can now hear everyone in 'English'.

Something people AREN'T asking - how come Tardis isn't picking up the telepathy of OOD and relaying it to Doc and Rose? Crescent 07:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How's this for a theory (only a theory, mind) - the TARDIS can't translate the Ood's telepathy unless it is directed at Rose or the Doctor, and it can't translate the writing because maybe it isn't writing but a trap disguised as writing to attract victims like Toby? RobbieG 07:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My original discussion point was to stimulate debate on whether there was ever any indication that the TARDIS could translate writing in the classic series. In retrospect, we can all laugh that buttons, switches, computer screens etc on ancient and distant plantets such as Skaro in Genesis of the Daleks were labeled in English and that everyone appeared to understand Susan's handwritten note in The Daleks but these may have been examples showing the TARDIS translating writing. However, I'm sure there are plenty of episodes (although admittedly I can't think of a single one off the top of my head) where the Doctor & Co have encountered some scrawled or ancient text that wasn't translated. In fact, thinking about it, what about the hieroglyphics in Pyramids of Mars? In the end though, I expect it can be conveniently explained away as one of the TARDIS's circuits on the blink :-) --86.27.60.124 08:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I always assumed that (for this episode, and probably for others) that the TARDIS couldn't translate languages that were only used before it was "grown" or "built"- however you may interpret it. It probably knows most languages that were used when it was created, but writing too old (hence the Doctor's comment about the writing being impossibly old) won't be translated. The_B 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Crashed or there on purpose?

From the article:

After a quick introduction, the Doctor and Rose learn that these humans are from an expedition that crashed onto a ruined planetoid that orbited a black hole. This is impossible as a black hole sucks everything into it and destroys it. The Doctor and Rose then witness the domain of an ancient race which owned many planets for a period of time.

But the expedition has apparently gone there with a purpose, to drill and find the power source... Which is it, are they on the planet by accident or deisgn? (e.g. did they crash) Also, what is the 'domain of an ancient race' that the Doctor and Rose witness? Is this a referring to them watching the destruction of a star system in to the black hole?

• The TARDISODE puts it that they went there on purpose. The 'empire' sounds to be in some kind of crisis, because the original captain is told that if he pulls this mission off he'll be 'hero of the empire'. The captain probably died during one of the quakes and the crew stayed to complete the mission out of a mix of honour and curiosity. In general though, I think every Saturday we get people rushing to add to each article and they put stuff in in a rush just to say they did it. --HellCat86 21:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Malapropism

from the article:

'The Doctor and Rose then witness the domain of an ancient race which owned many planets for a period of time.' (emphasis added)

surely should be "demise"? Chrisd87

No, it's domain. The wording perhaps is a little confusing, but after seeing the episode, domain is what makes the most sense. To say that the episode featured a race's demise would be untrue, as that didn't happen. RobbieG 07:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought it was referring to the star system that fell into the black hole. Chrisd87 12:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Style of plot summary

I'm trying to clean up the plot summary for spelling/grammar/style. For reference, is there a convention concerning whether these plot summaries should be in the present or past tense? the current one here mixes the two. Chrisd87 23:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Series 2: Heavier on the science?

I don't know if this is notable or not, but this series seems far more science-fictiony than the last one. Series 1 was basically science fantasy for the most part (with the possible exception of the Empty Child story). This series, however, seems to largely deal with actual science. I may be wrong here, but I think electrical organisms, self-reparing androids dismantling crewmembers, parallel universes, the removal of emotions, black holes and disease are all elements of 'hard' as opposed to 'soft' science fiction. Anyone else thinking along the same lines? RobbieG 08:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly not. On second thoughts, this series also goes into great detail about emotions and effects on lives, which is soft sci-fi. Ah well. RobbieG 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Beast"

{{spoiler}}

I don't know about anything else, but I think I know what "The Beast" is. Remember "Pyramids of Mars"? With Suteck? Remember he freed "the beast" and The Forth Doctor sealed the beast in a time tunnel? I thing the trapdoor is the time tunnel and the "the beast" in both programs are the same. Sadly, I never saw the episode of "Pyramids of Mars" and cannot find out more. - Darkwarlock999

I orginally had this idea, before the show aired. The "beast" mentioned, I concluded, would be a throw back to the old "Pyramids of Mars" episode, and would be Sutekh. The voice actor for "The Beast" in the old show and this one were the same, Gabriel Woolf.

It sparked my interest, that the planet could have been Mars, and that the Beast trapped would have been Sutekh. The archaeologist(s) would have broken the seal holding Sutekh's imprisonment and released him, thous making the episode.

Although now there are serveral flaws in this idea; for one, the Doctor points out to Rose in one scene in how to get back to Earth (in one direction for about five hundred years), which makes the planet not Mars, and voids the idea completely.. unless of course, there's a whole plot idea in the next episode to say otherwise. Daniel ^(talk)

There's always the possibiliaty that the tunnel was moved. I know it's crasy but there you are. And if this "Satan" is as powerful as the Satan in the Cristian religion, the could of moved the tunnel himself. It might of been his power that made the text infect Toby. It might kill him like it said. He might of been posessed like the Ood. I don't know if it was me, but did anyone elso notice the Ood's eyes go red when The Beast posessed them. It might even be possible that the black hole was made by The Beast. Its evan possible it is Mars, just preserved but changed. No-one will know until The Satan's Pit is released. I would appretiate it if people would put their theorys into this section. - Darkwarlock999

guess no one watched the coming attractions for next weeks episode eh? It's a fake beast, ie, a fake satan, or a fakan if you will, he said it's just playing on "simple fears" and seems to need a rocket ship to escape with, not very satanish--70.107.115.168 17:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw that preview, but I didn't see proof that it was Sutekh. I don't think Sutekh is at all likely, as that's a pretty obscure connection with the old series. I mean, I knew the Daleks, Autons and Cybers before I saw it, but I never heard of Sutekh. If they won't even mention Gallifrey, they won't mention Sutekh. Still, this is all speculation, so let's just wait for the concluding episode and see what happens! RobbieG 18:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well "The Beast" is a fairly common alternative name for "Satan", Beelzebub (which IIRC actually means "Lord of the flies"), Lucifer, Old Nick, the Devil, the "Father of Lies". If you've got one Doctor Who monster who has been mistaken by humans for the Devil, it's likely that when, 20 years later, another writer wants to use all that cultural heritage to make his monster scary that there are going to be similarities. It's a case of A and B both drawing on the same source, C, rather than B making deliberate allusions to A. For another example of a monster who looks like the devil, we can also mention the Pertwee era Daemons, which contained a goat-legged ram-horned monster of great power whose appearances had scared humans in the past... PaulHammond 19:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I still think that "satan" is going to turn out to be a rather humorously insignifgant alien with some sort of odd empathic influence over the already telapathic Ood--70.107.115.168 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sutekh, Last of the Osirians, was an ultra-powerful alien whom the Egyptians mythologised & worshipped as a god. He'd have no need or desire to masquerade as the Judaeo-Christian Devil, nor would he be caught dead ripping off the Book of Revelations with its 'Number of the Beast' paraphinelia. The fact that Gabriel Woolf is voicing both characters is a happy coincidence because he has an excellent voice for such parts, in the same way that Stephen Thorne voiced Omega, Azal the Daemon & Eldred of Kastria in the original series (even if he did sound like Brian Blessed at times). Vivamancer 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an interesting connection with the Pyramids of Mars --- After leaving the elevator, Ida says, "We've come this far, there's no turning back." In Pyramids of Mars, while inside the tomb, professor Scarman says "I've come too far to turn back now." Obviously could just be coincidence, but this really jumped out at me. --210.86.88.56 11:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

To add, I've re-watched the episode, and I have to draw some attention to what I have observed. Firstly, during the "Welcome to Hell" scene, the writing that appears to be "ancient, very ancient" looks a cross between old Arabic and Babylonian.

Later on in the episode, within the ancient ruins that the Doctor and Ida come across, the structures that appear looks alittle like those of Babylonian origin, which all in all phrases out the possibility of the Beast being Sutekh. - Daniel ^(talk)

So much for my idea! Darkwarlock999

I think that it is a new villain, some member of a very powerful race that became extinct Billions of years ago,the Beasts own kind trapped it inside the planet and turned its sun supernova creating a black hole, but unknown to them it created a gravity field allowing the planet to orbit inside the event horizon.the beast then began to exert its influence over the universe becoming Satan, spreading evil throughout the galaxies.

Not a chance, there's no way that it's going to be "all powerful" or anything else like that--205.188.116.5 14:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Event Horizon"

This episode strongly reminded me of the film Event Horizon. Am I the only one? If not should this be mentioned in the 'notes' section somewhere? quercus robur 13:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• yes, yes, yes, they're cleary ripping off event horrizon a bit, seems so obvious it isn't really worth mentioning..--70.107.115.168 17:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, if there is evidence to back it up, I think it should be mentioned. I've never seen Event Horizon, so it wasn't obvious to me. RobbieG 18:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a terrible movie, you're not missing much--70.107.115.168 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, fairly reminescant of Doom, in my opinion... The_B 19:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this episode seems more like The Black Hole by Disney. Event Horizon borrowed elements from that movie

The door sounds on the habitat were sound effects from Doom - for the doors, fittingly enough. Those sounds were also used for several other things in the episode. 124.148.125.156 (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to barge in on that: Sound Ideas, nuff said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.48.156 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"I have been imprisoned for eternity.." uuuuh, can't they just limit themselves to one B movie reference per epsiode? What does The Beast need with a rocket ship?? bah--205.188.116.5 14:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ood = Daleks?

More specifically, Ood = unsuited imperial Daleks from an alternate time line where davros is really satan? I mean common, they both have glowing thingies that light up when they talk, and uh, they're both aliens.... discuss..... --70.107.115.168 17:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm... no. —Whouk (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's got a really good point! Also, the both look like squids! OMGOMGOMG it must be true!!! RobbieG 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who uses the word 'discuss' in that way (except for genuine examination writers) should be ignored at all times. And banished from contact with other humans. Damiancorrigan 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm joking. Please don't tell me off for criticising a fellow wikipedian.

^^I guess nobody told that to Ida Scott! ;) RobbieG 18:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The squid think could just be a coincidence. Darkwarlock999

To be fair, I reckon it was a covert way of recycling aliens for use in plot lines, but generally has no link to Davros' Daleks (They're not actually Imperial, they're self-proclaimed imperial), at all. James Random 10:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

They're more Cthulhoid than squiddy. GraemeLeggett 11:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about the Ood

What is the morality of handling a race who wish to serve/do not wish to be free? (Though the Ood may have another purpose which is aided by their #appearing# to be servile.)

I read The Ship from Atlantis a long time ago - wasn't one group digging to reach the underworld there too?

Jackiespeel 21:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what they remind me of? Those house-elves from Harry Potter. I mean, they are both non-human and they both enjoy serving others to the point of apparent slavery. Those 'friends of Ood' or whatever they are called who campaign for Ood rights remind me of SPEW. Rose, being from our time, is shocked by the idea, but this could be seen as a misunderstanding arising from a clash of cultures. This is like Hermione from Harry Potter, who, being from our non-magical world, is horrified by the thought of enslaved elfs. Of course, the similarities end there. We don't actually know what the Ood are thinking, whereas it's quite clear that house-elfs are happy with their lot. Also, elfs aren't evil, but I'm not convinced the Ood are either - I expect Dobby could be much more sinister under the imperius curse... RobbieG 08:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought they were a lot like Kif Kroker from Futurama, from the serviance, to the voice, right down the eyes. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Facially they are more like Zoidberg. 80.42.110.162 12:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Two issues - what the Ood are up to, and the ethics of freeing a species which wants to be directed Jackiespeel 12:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to address your second issue with my Harry Potter comparison. It's a moral dilemma, because it involves a clash of cultures. Slavery, which is unnacceptable in our society, is most house-elfs' raison d'etre. On the other hand, we can't for certain say that the same is true of the Ood, because we don't actually know what they are thinking.

That brings us neatly to your first point. What are they up to? The Ood are, IMHO, most likely just there because they genuinely are the slaves of humans. It's just unfortunate that their telepathy makes it easy for the Beast to control them. Notice that when Toby was possessed, he showed the same symptoms? However, it's possible that the Ood would benefit from freedom but have never known anything but slavery. I am inclined to believe that their apparent willingness to serve the Beast is a result of some biological need to follow orders, meaning that they can't disobey him. By this reckoning, the Ood aren't actually evil, they just don't discriminate between good and evil. They could even have been created by the Beast for this very purpose, as it seems unlikely that a species would evolve for the sole purpose of servitude (not very "survival of the fittest"!), although then the plot begins to sound a lot like Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. However, I don't know why I'm writing all this when it serves no use to the article, as I imagine all will be revealed in The Satan Pit. RobbieG 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I was making the point that there are two separate issues. The purpose of the Ood will be resolved in the second half of the episode, but the ethical issue can be treated independently of the plot. Could "inherently subservient behaviour" evolve as part of a complex multi-species evolutionary process whether physical or memetic (eg birds and hippos, fish and anenomes ).

Another topic which, while worth pointing out, can easily wander into original research and pure speculation.

Passing note - is there any signficiance to the "loose connection" (ie what they say initially may be what they mean)?

Jackiespeel 22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, at first I thought that might be the case, too, but I doubt it. "We must feed" is such a cliché that it can surely only have been meant as a joke. Of course, come Saturday evening I may have to eat my words... RobbieG 08:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ood issue has been resolved - but my comment about the ethics of dealing with a species which wants to serve still stands: could extend it to a pack-based species looking for a pack leader. Anyone looking for an ethics paper question? (If borrowing, please ask (g).) Jackiespeel 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Compare, for example, with Douglas Adams' The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. There's a scene in the restaurant where an animal is offering them parts of its body to eat. Arthur Dent complains that he can't eat an animal that "wants to be eaten". Ford Prefect replies "Isn't that better than eating one that doesn't want to be eaten?". --DudeGalea 22:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Um... Which Ood issue has been resolved? We don't know who the Ood were, where they came from, how they felt about being enslaved, whether or not the said enslavement can be seen as ethical even if they were, whether they have their own separate identites or even genders, why they exist to serve...

In short, we know next to nothing about the creatures. I personally thought that was a pretty big loose end to leave, but perhaps it wouldn't have been if the Ood had been Raxicoricofallapatorians instead. On the other hand, I like the Ood thing better as the Slitheen has already become a boring cliché within the series. Hopefully the Ood will be back for Series 3 and we'll find out some more about them then. RobbieG 13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

29A?

this is going to seem kind of silly, but did anyone notice the digits 29A showing up anywhere? since 29A is the number 666 in hexadecimal, i sort of figured they wouldn't be able to resist having it show up somewhere, especially with all the numbers and letters flying around--70.107.115.168 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

in octets; 110 110 110, binary; 00110110 00110110 00110110. Haven't seen it but adding to the list. You never know.

Quarries

Didn't they use a quarry in The Christmas Invasion as the Sycorax ship before this? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I seem to recall photographs from the Radio Times showing the ship was a set and the surface of the ship, for the battle, was filmed on a beach using a lot of green screen work. Snowflake Sans Crainte 10:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For the interior of the Sycorax ship in The Christmas Invasion, a cave was used as the location for shooting. This from The Christmas Invasion: "Parts of the episode were filmed at the Clearwell Caves in Gloucestershire." Liyster 12:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"At the centre of the planet there would be no gravitational force."

What? I'm no expert, but surely at the centre of the planet the gravitational force would be strong enough to break bones, bend steel and turn water into boiling hot ice! If there's no gravity in the planet's core, where on earth (or under) does it come from? 80.42.110.162 11:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• well for one thing, it's not really a planet, it's a big floating chunk of rock, the only thing that seems to keep it from falling into the black hole is that it has a giant artificial gravity generator at the center of it, there's no reason to assume that such a tiny planatoid would even produce it's own gravitation, and obviously they're not feeling the effects of the black hole's gravitation acting on them, or they'd be crushed into little tiny chunks of string cheese within momments of getting anywhere near it. Thus no reason to assume that an artificial source of gravity wouldn't be completely uniform--205.188.116.5 13:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you could visit the center of the Earth, you would be weightless. It's because at the center, you are being pulled equally in all directions, so there is no net gravitational force. Similarly, if you descend down a mine shaft, your weight will decrease (very slightly!), as the further down you go, the more matter there is above you. Remember that the gravitational pull of the Earth is created by each individual particle in it all pulling at once. --DudeGalea 14:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Um... wow. That makes an awful lot of sense, but it also contradicts all the stuff I learnt in physics class. I was told that despite the high temperatures down there, the centre of the Earth is solid, because of the pull of gravity. In this case, is the Earth's core liquid? Or hollow? Sorry, I'm not serious about the hollow Earth theory (I think it's crazy), but if the Earth's core is liquid - well, for me, that's a pretty big revelation. I guess teachers don't know everything, but it's a major error to make. RobbieG 19:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The pressure in the center of the Earth is very very high. Although there's no net gravitational force right in the middle, everything else that makes up Earth is being pulled toward the center. Also, the top layer - the surface - is bearing down upon the layer beneath, and that upon the layer beneath and so on, right down to the center. Let me make an (admittedly weak) analogy. You stand with your back against a wall. You hold a large box in your hands. A friend ties a bungee cord to the wall on your right, wraps it around the front of the box, and ties the other end to the wall on your left. So the box is being pulled hard toward you, squashing you against the wall. But you yourself are not being pulled by the bungee - only the box is feeling that force directly. You are feeling it indirectly, because the box is pushing on you. Likewise, the matter in the center of the Earth isn't feeling the gravity directly, it's feeling the pressure from all the matter above it that is feeling the gravity.

Regarding the composition of the center of the Earth, I think scientists do currently believe that the center is molten iron. --DudeGalea 20:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It took me a couple of re-reads to understand, but it makes perfect sense. Thanks again! BTW, you're really good at these physics explainations. Are you a college lecturer? Even if you aren't, you should be. RobbieG 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I attended state school education in the UK from 1985 to 1999 and I was always told the Earth's core was molten. RobbieG, get your money back on your education.Damiancorrigan 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gee, that was blunt; I hope you didn't mean to sound so insulting. Anyway, I was sure I read that solid core stuff in a book somewhere. If my education wasn't any good, let's compare it to that of some Oxford professor! I'll let you know when I've found the book... RobbieG 07:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, here we are. Let's see what all the encyclopaedias I could find say on the matter!

• 1993 The Kingfisher Visual Factfinder - "The inner core is solid, but the outer core is liquid" (It's a quick-reference type book so it glosses over the details)
• 2003 Volume Library 1 (from Southwestern/Great American Inc.) - "In 1936 a Danish seismologist, Inge Lehmann, noticed that P-waves speed up and S-waves reappear when they descend deeper than 5,155 kilometres (3,196 miles). Based on this and on additional seismic data, Lehmann concluded that Earth's core below 5155 kilometres (3196 miles) is probably solid - with a composition similar to that of the liquid outer core." (Makes sense)
• 1998 Journey to the Centre of the Earth (A Reader's Digest children's book (hangs head in shame) from Orpheus Books Ltd.) - "At the centre of the Earth lies a solid ball of iron and nickel. Here the pressure is several million times greater than at the surface, enough to make liquid iron turn solid even at temperatures of up to 7,500°C (13,500°F)" (It's my younger brother's old book and we haven't got round to throwing it out yet)
• Last but not least, let's see what good ol' Wikipedia herself says - "The inner core is very hot and is under extreme pressure. Temperatures there can reach 5,000 to 6,000 °C (>9,000 °F). However, unlike the outer core, the inner core remains solid due to the extremely high pressure. The average density of the core is about 15 g/cm³."

I rest my case. RobbieG 08:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a two parter...

...so I just thought we should bear in mind a lot of our queries may be answered in five days' time. No doubt this pair of episodes will still leave room for speculation, even then. DavidFarmbrough 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Notes Section

The notes section on these episode pages contain a lot of seemingly irrelevant information, i think they need to be pruned a bit. Things like " "Ood" is also "Doom" backwards omitting the M " are rather speculative and serve no real purpose 88.109.129.10 11:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• yes, but "Notes Section" spelled backwards without any Ns in it is "oitceS seto", pretty freaky huh?--205.188.116.5 13:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, does anyone have a reference for note 17, which says: "The first time Toby exits to the corridor after hearing his name whispered, the closing door sound effects are that from the original Doom game."?

• You know what else is funny, "Doom" spelled backwards, with the "M" is "mood", guess I'll never look at mood lighting in the same way again, or not--70.107.115.168 16:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've not got a reference, but it definatly sounds like the doom sound effect. As soon as I heard the sound, I identified it as coming from the original doom - I have an annoying habit of identifing stock sound effects aswell, it really ruins films and TV programmes sometimes Darksun 13:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dating the episode

When Jefferson reports Scooti's death, he mentions that she is deceased, "Forty-three K two point one", which is presumably where the website that says "43,231 AD" got the date from, i.e. a mishearing. We don't know for sure that it's a date, but it sounds likely, but we still don't know what scale they are using. Personally, I'd take it as an indication that the setting is the 440th century, but this is just my own speculation, and should not be added. I'm noting the actual words said here just in case anyone tries to add it again.

Wouldn't that more likely be the 44th rather than the 440th, since 43K is 43,000 yrs - see Warhammer 40K. GraemeLeggett 12:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, 43K was said in the episode, so it means 43,000.--Keycard ^(talk) 12:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't know for sure that the K means thousand - it might be 'kay' - a word inserted into a date like 'apple' and 'cup'! DavidFarmbrough 13:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

For instance, today is June delta apple orange banana 251325 day--205.188.116.5 14:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

trying to be scary

I think it's pretty obvious that they're more or less trying to recreate the success of the empty child and the doctor dances, but beyond that, there seem to be some pretty specific parallels:

• 1) "the beast" seems to be able to Om-Com, "anything with a speaker grill" or in this the base computer, and the ood spheres..
• 2) "the beast" also seems to be able to revive "toby" from death or near death
• 3) and finally "the beast" seems to be able to telepathically control armies of people who behave almost zombie like

Either they're using a very obvious formula for writing these episodes, or we may get to finally see what a Chula looks like, not to mention, since Jack hinted at having the "last [chula warship] in existance", kind of suggests that the Chula were one of the races that ceased to exist as a result of the time war, which would also explain the TARDIS not being able to translate a language that doesn't exist anymore--205.188.116.5 13:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good theory, but I think the Beast's telepathic powers are merely a story element, and the zombies, like the Devil, are just a universal fear. They want a scary episode, so they make the Ood zombie-like. Emotionless, zombie-like beings are nearly always scary. They did the same in Rose, The Unquiet Dead, The Long Game, The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances, New Earth, The Girl in the Fireplace, Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel and The Idiot's Lantern. Whew... more than I expected. It's not very original, but if you want to know why it's effective, see uncanny valley. As for the speaker grill, I didn't think that's what the Beast did - rather, he used all the machinery - phones, doors, translation balls. He even made his face appear on the monitor, which evidently did not involve the use of a speaker grill. OTOH, it's high time we found out more about this "Time War", and your theory is certainly attractive. RobbieG 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

An interesting link to the uncanny valley article, RobbieG. Not a million miles away from Who's own Grimwade's Syndrome in The Robots of Death: the Sandminer Society's pathological fear of robots, often caused by the automatas' lack of subtle human/primate/organic body language cues. It must be like being in an Anechoic chamber, which can be unsettling & disturbing as you can't hear all the echoes you hear from normal environments. Vivamancer 21:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sixes & Nines in the Scarlet System's demise

I note both your points, Khaosworks. However, I would point out: the shot of the Scarlet system is given particular prominence in the show, as Ida draws attention to it, at a time when the tension & allusions to The Number of the Beast are being built up. Red in particular is a colour associated with the Devil.

The hole doesn't look like this in the previous shots, & the red trail makes the image significantly different. Most sci-fi film & tv graphics of black holes show more of a uniform spiral or whirlpool effect, not the single extruded arc in a contrast colour leading down into it.

Screencap the image & invert it, & look at it.

Yes the Mill could have made it more obviously a six, rather than inverting it, but if you look at the graphic, it's obviously intended to be a number not just a cosmic plughole.

I would have uploaded the inverted graphic on the page to make this clearer, but as there was already an image on the page, I didn't, becaue I respect other Wikipedians' editorial contributions.

The number of the Beast is 666, not 999, unless the police have some very dodgy connections. The episode is riddled with 6s. This shot is one of them.

I'm off for a 99 cornet (from cornu, Latin for horn...) Vivamancer 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see it; the screenshot, which is on Outpost Gallifrey, looks fairly normal and pretty un-sixlike. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That screenshot's probably not the best example. There's another bit where you see it behind the mountains and then it really does look like an inverted 6. Well, to me, anyway. RobbieG 16:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of the word 'plot'

'Plot' does not mean 'detailed description of every minute detail of a story'. These plot descriptions are ludicrously long - someone ought to shorten them. Damiancorrigan 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been raised before on the Wikiproject page and you're welcome to raise it there again. However, the general feeling was that the longer synopses were to be retained. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Because It's There!

Didn't the Doctor make a "because it's there" reference to Mt. Everest in this episode? RobbieG 08:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Torchwood reference?

The article mentions that Torchwood is not referenced in the episode, however the article for Torchwood says "In The Impossible Planet, the doctor says "Let's throw some light on the subject. A torch would do it. Or the sonic screwdriver."" What's the verdict? Liyster 12:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether the Doctor said: "a torch would..." or not is immaterial. I do think this is taking the "look for the 'Torchwood' reference" a little too far IMHO - HeyWayne ( Talk • Contributions ) 14:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If he did say that, it wouldn't surprise me if it was deliberate joke on the behalf of the writer, albeit not, in the fictional universe, an actual reference to Torchwood. —Whouk (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Whouk. It's not taking things too far at all. Well done the writer and well done Liyster for spotting it. Damiancorrigan 15:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's rather good to have spotted it, and it'd be worth noting.--Keycard ^(talk) 16:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed that line. Which scene was it in? RobbieG 17:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As much as this is clever, we probably know now that this reference was not an intentional one, as there was a blatent refernce in The Satan Pit, assuming this series is still following the "one reference per two-parter" method... The_B 19:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My first attempt at a comment in a wiki, so apologies if I get this wrong. There IS a torchwood reference in this episode - the captain when speaking to the Ood/Satan says he is 'representing the Torchwood Archive'. - Fetch 1:36, 11 June 2006 (EST)

I didn't catch that in this episode. The captain does say exactly that in the following episode (The Satan Pit) however. --DudeGalea 06:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You're correct - I had the episodes confused. Thanks! - Fetch 2:51, 11 June 2006 (EST)

• • The torchwood reference you seek is spoken by the acting captain when adressing The Beast for the first time.

Note 1 - Innaccurate?

Note 1 says "This is the first episode of the revived series not to have any scenes on or near Earth (or parallel versions thereof)."

But that's not right is it? New Earth, anyone? It wasn't a paraell Earth either, just another planet that the humans settling there happened to mould into being similar to Earth for nostalgia, wasn't it? The_B 18:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you re-watch the first 2 minutes of that episode, if you think it had no scenes set on Earth. Morwen - Talk 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the pre credits sequence that episode, apologies. The_B 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILER

{{spoiler}} The following is a spoiler for The Satan Pit. It concerns the nature of the plot of the two episodes. If you do not wish to have this spoilt for you, do not read this!!!

Have I made myself clear? I know there's already a spoiler warning further up the page, but as this is official information and concerns an unbroadcast episode, I thought some people might appreciate an additional warning. In the Radio Times (10-16 June) Russell T. Davies made the following statement about the Beast:

"It's not the Devil. It's a tricky one. Without giving too much away, there's a great big creature which is red - a magnificent CGI creation by the Mill. But this is still Doctor Who. It just pushes the Doctor's and Rose's thinking, their preconceptions. It challenges everyone's faith and belief, and doesn't undermine it, either."

Well, there you have it. Really, it isn't that big a spoiler (doubtless many of you suspected as much all along), but I didn't want to ruin the upcoming episode for anyone. Anyway, I hope this means we can finally bring all this ridiculous speculation about the Beast to a close (that'd be the day). RobbieG 08:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not the devil. The thing in Star Trek: The Final Frontier turned out not to be God! --81.105.251.160 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Zach/Zack

We're using the traditional spelling, 'Zach', but the BBC's official website uses the more modern 'Zack'. RobbieG 08:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really not a planet is it?

If the power source is at the center, and it's 10 miles down, that makes the radius of the planet a mere 10 miles, for comparison the radius of the earth is around 3963 miles, give or take, which makes this "planet" a tiny little rock, probably too small to even have a natural gravitational pull, which probably explains the lack of atmosphere anyway, but puts the gravity discussion to rest. Unless this planet is made of something bizarrely dense, the only option is artifical gravity, planet wide, probably all the way down to the core--70.107.115.168 18:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but it's the impossible planet! :-) --DudeGalea 19:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could say impossible planetoid. ;) RobbieG 20:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Numbers

The Tardis appears in section 6 - and isn't there a triple six mentioned - a pair of episodes on the Saturdays nearest to 06.06.06. Somebody's sense of humour? Jackiespeel 22:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Scootori Manista PKD"

Jefferson reports Scooty's death:

"Report: Officer Scootori Manista PKD, Deceased, 43K 2.1"

Is PKD some kind of post-nomial qualification/award. Are we supposed to be left completely in the dark as to its meaning. Or are we just supposed to reasonably assume that it's an homage to Philip K. Dick who wrote a story called... The Impossible Planet. I suppose this is speculation, and therefore cannot go in the article. But I'm rather pleased to have worked it out. Thoughts? Dissent? --81.105.251.160 01:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

scientific errors section?

I don't like it - I know we've had an interesting talk on this talk page about black holes and the physics of gravity - but I don't think we should put that on the article page. I mean, why pick out this episode in particular? There are science mistakes in every episode of Doctor Who, and anyone that interested can probably find the information on other Wikipedia articles, or elsewhere on the net. PaulHammond 15:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I take your point. I think the reason that it was added was that it was felt particularly applicable to this episode, as the very title seems to refer to one of these things that are in error. It's called the "Impossible Planet", seemingly because it's in orbit around the black hole, whereas in fact there's no problem with that. It's a bit more of a fundamental error than just some incidental nonsense that you can ignore.

Having said that, as I stated somewhere up above, I don't think that Who should be striving to be a science show. When you start with a multi-dimensional time ship, you're already well outside the realm of science anyway. It's all a bit of fun, with some Doctor geekery thrown in to amuse technonerds. So, despite my long ramblings above about the science, I agree with you. --DudeGalea 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

One of those things happened to me where you're just sitting there doing something and then suddenly completely out of nowhere a sudden revelation occurs in something completely unrelated. Anyway, the thought that entered my mind just a few minutes ago was that the Doctor is correct in saying that the planet is an Impossible Planet. See, the thing is that planets can orbit black holes, yes, but given the fact that entire solar systems are being ripped from light years away and then sucked into a massive black hole means that no single planet can retain its orbit around the black hole (of its own accord)--it would have to be sucked in with everything else. That's why it's impossible. So no, it's not a scientific inaccuracy, it's just that the Doctor doesn't explain it clearly or at all. DonQuixote 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I rationalised it to myself by assuming that it wasn't really a black hole as we know it, and that the Doctor is just calling it a black hole because that's the term we know. A fun way of thinking about it, which is sort-of similar to what you've just said. You can get away with anything then. :-) Of course, that's so speculative that it's totally inappropriate for the main article page. (Actually, I have to do something similar with all fiction, as I'm totally incapable of suspending my disbelief. I just can't do it. At the back of my mind, I'm always imagining that the story is taking place in another universe, as that's the only way I can enjoy it without continually thinking "that's not possible". I can't even watch a soap without doing this. Weird, maybe, but I didn't even realise this wasn't normal 'til I was an adult. I just assumed everyone did this!) --DudeGalea 20:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the Doctor having the TARDIS or Star Trek having Warp drive. I can deal with that because it's a totally fantastic element you need to have a story. That's fine, but then you can't have completely normal and well-known things like Black Holes suddenly having properties or behaving like they shouldn't. I mean, you don't throw away gravity or Newton's third law just because the TARDIS exists, and they're just as scientific as planets orbiting black holes. I get that's an extreme, but where do you draw the line? It wouldn't have been too much work for them to have nodded a head to science and said something along the lines of: "an orbit this close to a black hole is impossible" --AiusEpsi 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

But then again, this is the Doctor--the guy who rattles off an explanation at a thousand words per minute then looks at you like you drooled on your shirt if you don't understand him.  ;) The moment he says that it's impossible is the moment he expects you to understand why. DonQuixote 03:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. They could (and maybe should) have made the science a bit better, without compromising the story. But OTOH I just accept that we are seeing an abbreviated form of what the Doctor is really saying, shortended for the sake of drama. He may have 'really' given a long explanation that this phenomenon obeys the hyper-transcendent metric thus giving it an inverse cube law at close range, rendering normal orbits unstable. Instead, we just see him saying "That's impossible." Dramatic license. (Though I do like to imagine that my long version will be on the DVD deleted scenes. :-) ) Anyone who's really interested can find out more on t'internet anyway. --DudeGalea 06:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Four good reasons to examine the science

There are four good reasons to examine the science in fiction:

1) Acknowledging errors can be a useful way to move past them and enjoy the program instead of being distracted by trying to understand what isn't really understandable.

2) Sometimes a seaming "error" in a script is in fact a clue that foreshadows future events. For example in The Twin Dilema, Mestor's explanation of moving planets around to make a larder is in fact a fraud to hide his true intention of blowing up the star. (Unfortunately, the real science is as bad as Mestor's cover story, so the audience does not really have any chance of solving the mystery the way the Doctor does.)

3) Connecting abstract concepts to something visual and interesting is a useful way to refine one's understanding of science - even if the connection is that of how things don't work.

4) It's fun to come up with ways to fix the science without breaking the story. Algr 18:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Summoning the TARDIS

Did the Doctor ever say why he couldn’t call the TARDIS to him using the key like he did last season? --Arctic Gnome 17:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• In the episode no, he didn't. However it is suggested in the previous season that calling the TARDIS with the key takes much concentration and a matter of hours, two luxuries the Doctor did not possess in this episode.

Owing to the nature of what was happening in the first series episode, it may be a different case.

The Mysterous Couple

Dunno if this is noteworthy all that much, but worth a mention, I guess. If you would notice, regardless of what is happening at the time, the Ninth Doctor and Rose always would deny to be a couple. Then Danny calls them 'the mysterous couple' and they don't object at all.

Yeah, prolly not the most important thing ever, heh. :p Phil 02:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Two possible explanations:

• Danny was just using 'couple' to refer to the fact that there's two of them, rather than implying any romantic relationship, so they didn't bother to correct him.
• Since The Parting of the Ways there is a genuine romantic relationship between them so they aren't embarrassed by it. It's frequently implied (and sometimes, outside the programme, stated outright) that the Doctor has a sort of romantic relationship with companions, although it's not a sexual one in the sense of the word that most people would use.

I think both of the above are equally valid. RobbieG 14:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Errors

the doctor is incorrect in the context that it is impossible to orbit a black hole, but the First Stable Orbin of any black hold is generally billions of kilometers in distance. In the episode, It appears that the BLack hold is within quite close proximity to the black hold and well beyond the last stable point at which it could orbit it and I think that this is the impossibility that the doctor referrs to, not the phenomenon itself. James Random 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • If you read through the script as I have, you will see that it is hinted at that the black hole has been there for many many years, therefore it is quite possible that the gravitational influence of the black hole has simply taken the toll of time on the star system in question. Also, the gravitational field of the black hole is generally strong enough that no orbit can be possible, object are generally sucked in directly, albeit over periods of years.

• • Generally true - but I think this is generally artistic license since no wind would be audible in space just as no phasers fights would be audible in Star Trek but some how a silent phaser fight just wouldn't cut it! James Random 13:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • If you read through science like others have, then you will see that there is no such thing as plain gravitational influence that many keeping thinking of as a giant vacuum cleaner. Even a vacuum cleaner doesn't work the way man think it does. Objects don't get pulled in, but EXPAND into the space vacated through friction and motion of gases. There is no direct pulling force. A black hole has no stronger a gravitational field than any other object of equivalent mass. You can have micro-black holes in the same room and you wouldn't notice. They generally evaporate because they lack the mass to balance their Hawking radiation.
    • Gravity as we understand it now is just now warping of space causing all objects moving in a straight line to get curved around it. An orbit in this curved space is dependent on the speed of the moving object in relationship to the warping. So you don't get pulled in. You just drift in a curved vector toward, or away from the center, if you're not moving at a speed that causes the line to form a circular orbit. There is no friction to change speeds except maybe the in-falling material or gravity waves all of which the Doctor should've hinted at, or that the planet was inside the event horizon, and solve the doubt.
    • It's not fine when shows fail to educate people, but continue to put notions into people's head that directly contradict current science without a device to suspend belief such as a flux capacitor.
    • We have no idea how big the black hole is so you cannot derive the first stable orbit being billions of kilometers in distance. Being that we can see in-falling real-time, we can only postulate the planet is really close to the event horizon, and would have to orbit at a speed close to the speed of light; that's a realistic impossibility. --NuShrike 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bodies Exploding in space.

The body would not explode in space - rather - it would freeze solid in two minutes flat and then implode, the trauma to the body leading up to solid freezing has often caused fim-makers to believe that the body explodes in space, but generally, it does not. James Random 13:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Only because the temperature is -273° Celsius in space (a few millionths of a degree above that maybe). You freeze before you explode in the vacuum of space. However if there was plenty of heat and you just explosively decompressed with a lungfull of air - ooh boy would you ever pop like an over-ripe grape, for the same reason scuba divers who don't breath out on ascent and head up too quickly wind up with multiple air embolisms, severe internal trauma and stroke. Also, two minutes is a conservative estimate. It would take a handful of seconds. 124.148.125.156 (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor goof

When the Ood first greet the Doctor and Rose and file into the room, the opening doors don't give the 'Door x Open' signal.

Dungeons & Dragons

Does anyone else see (possibly coincidental) similarities between both The Impossible Plannet & The Satan Pit and the old Dungeons & Dragons module H2 Mines of the Bloodstone? Can anyone speculate on the likelyhood of this being a purpusful homage on the part of the writers? Azezel 23:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not really relevant to the article, I know, but since we're talking about this sort of thing, could the possessed Toby's appearance have been influenced by Sasuke from Naruto (complete with cursed seal and sharingan)? The resemblance is striking. RobbieG 17:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Im going to have to say it was just one big Doom reference. From the plot to the sound effects it had Doom written all over it. Well Doom 3 to be more precise. Thats why I was a little irked when all references to get where missing the second time I checked this page.68.226.119.201 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You only think that because the show sometimes uses the same soundboard as the sound effects in Doom. Nothing worse than a bunch of neurotic editors cluttering articles with the perceived "references" to their obsessions that they mysteriously discover everywhere. I mean, Naruto? Really? 174.110.143.94 (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Scientific errors

The scientific errors section is original research so I've removed it. It would fit very well on the Tardis website (see Wikia:tardis:The Impossible Planet). The material may be used there under the same GNU Free Document License that is supported by Wikipedia. Please credit Wikipedia in your edit, in order to comply with the license. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The unreadable language?

Shavian, by any chance? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Blueprints of TARDIS

Is there a reason why the blueprints are considered to be a plot hole? Even biological organisms have a blueprint they're grown to. Humans inherit their blueprint from their parents. Surely, they'd have to encode the growing information in some manner. Could you imagine having to come up with the TARDIS blueprints from scratch every time a new one was requisitioned (back before the TARDIS was the last)? While there are plot holes in Dr Who, I'm not sure that growing being grown and having a blueprint qualifies as a plot hole. Thoughts on deletion? 173.8.202.97 (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind it being deleted, as it is nit-pickey trivia. It's also just discontinuity, not a plot hole. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I deleted this part. In the events of The Doctor's Wife we see that the Doctor can and did build a working TARDIS console. So, when they say they built a TARDIS they may be referring to just the console section. Also, even if a TARDIS was grown from coral you would still need to add the mechanical parts to the inside even if the shell is alive. In essence, the TARDIS is a "bigger on the inside" cyborg. Wtbe7560 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

FN P90? No one else noticed?

Would the fact that the guns used in both this episode and the next ('The Satan Pit') are FN P90s belong anywhere on this page? I can't believe no one else mentioned this on either article or talk page, though the shots with it were filmed in such a way that they rarely show the gun in profile.--AlexSushiama (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your expertise. Please provide a reliable source so that we amateurs can verify it. DonQuixote (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Year 43K 2.1

Just saying, to whoever added that part in, he means 4302, in January. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.200.109.124 (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Help

Please add {{Distinguish2|"Impossible Planet", an episode of ''[[Philip K. Dick's Electric Dreams]]''}}. IPs are blocked from inserting the word 'dick'. Thanks. 81.141.56.30 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Impossible Planet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614080359/http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk23/feature_doctorwho.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk23/feature_doctorwho.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)