Heroes Volume 3 : Villains


Recommended Posts

I read the plot details and I was a little off because Peter's memory recovery needs clarification. He fully recovered his memory after meeting with Adam, but he did remember who his mom was (thus a partial recovery) in the future, before meeting Adam. So...... :unsure:

Edit: Basically waht SOOPRcow said :p

yea... seems the memory recovery with his mom was strictly to know that Angela was his mom and Nathan was his brother...

I was just doing some thinking about the future and have a theory that we have had two different futures. In one future, the one the season opened up with, we have people with abilities that are hunted down as a consequence of Nathan's press conference revelation. In the future that Hiro saw, it appeared that anyone could have had powers because we have seen 1) Mohinder create a serum to expose abilities and 2) Ando killing Hiro with his own power, which to me says that the future has changed drastically already and obviously revolves around the formula. The argument could be made that Mohinder probably would have done this anyhow (giving people powers), but it's feasible to think that Nathan revealing that he could fly could have resulted in Mohinder's research from not progressing to the point of giving people abilities. As it stands, we don't know that the future Peter came from is the same as the one Hiro teleported to. All we know about Peter's future is that people with abilities are hunted. Maybe I'm reading too much into this and the show's writers don't delve that deeply in the story.

"My name is Sylar...and you are not my mother..."

"But I am, dear...I am..."

put like this, with the actual comas , i understand it now lol. Stupid english language. I kept thinking she was saying, But, I am dear.... I am... using dear as a sign of affection or kindness. so ooooooooooooo at that.

I was just doing some thinking about the future and have a theory that we have had two different futures. In one future, the one the season opened up with, we have people with abilities that are hunted down as a consequence of Nathan's press conference revelation. In the future that Hiro saw, it appeared that anyone could have had powers because we have seen 1) Mohinder create a serum to expose abilities and 2) Ando killing Hiro with his own power, which to me says that the future has changed drastically already and obviously revolves around the formula. The argument could be made that Mohinder probably would have done this anyhow (giving people powers), but it's feasible to think that Nathan revealing that he could fly could have resulted in Mohinder's research from not progressing to the point of giving people abilities. As it stands, we don't know that the future Peter came from is the same as the one Hiro teleported to. All we know about Peter's future is that people with abilities are hunted. Maybe I'm reading too much into this and the show's writers don't delve that deeply in the story.

We strictly speaking from a time travel issue, Hiro would not be able to go to future Peter's future as it no longer existed the second he shot Nathan. So when Hiro went into the Future, it is a new future. Which would be the 5th future we have seen. (Bomb future, no bomb future, virus future, Future Peter's future and Hiro's (season 3) future) All of which makes it very hard to keep track of. On second thought, maybe only 4 futures as not sure about the no bomb future being seperate.

We strictly speaking from a time travel issue, Hiro would not be able to go to future Peter's future as it no longer existed the second he shot Nathan. So when Hiro went into the Future, it is a new future. Which would be the 5th future we have seen. (Bomb future, no bomb future, virus future, Future Peter's future and Hiro's (season 3) future) All of which makes it very hard to keep track of. On second thought, maybe only 4 futures as not sure about the no bomb future being seperate.

Technically there are five futures, but instead of calling it a "no bomb future", it's better worded as the present (the present will go on, thus there will be a future of today where no catastrophic event has occurred), else you start having a no virus future, no mass people with abilities future, etc. I'm sure we will always see a new future because how else are they going to save the world?

in season 1 Sylar was originally "the bomb"... remember Future Hiro said he stabbed Sylar but he regenerated because he had Claire's power... once Claire was saved... Peter became the bomb... saving the cheerleader stopped Sylar from getting her power then.

Great point... looks like some people weren't really paying attention :p

We strictly speaking from a time travel issue, Hiro would not be able to go to future Peter's future as it no longer existed the second he shot Nathan. So when Hiro went into the Future, it is a new future.

Thank you, you saved me from having to type out a bunch of stuff. Basically, the future that Hiro went to and saw Ando hadoken his ass is a different future than the one future Peter is from. Peter coming back from future changed everything, hence that future Hiro saw is the consequence of what Peter had done.

As for the preview of Ma Petrelli giving that woman to Sylar to "study"... I am more inclined to believe she has some kind of persuasion power, otherwise, why would that girl stand there like a zombie and let him do what ever? (Unless they have some kind of serum that makes people comply) I hardly think the name 'Sylar' would be unknown to the people with powers.

It took me a while to explain to the girlfriend why I yelled "Fry him V. Weevil has your back." during the scene between Elle and Sylar.

LOL. Man, I was like WTF -- no effing way! If they killed Bell off the first episode, I would go apeshiit.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      579
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!