this twisted my head

Glaucus · 6 Dec 2010 at 22:16

I don't see how flatliners has anything to do with that theory.

Archibald0 · 6 Dec 2010 at 22:20

Redz · 6 Dec 2010 at 22:26

SiriusB · 6 Dec 2010 at 22:27

''all it did was put me 90 minutes closer to death''

What possible theory could that lead to? It's another way of saying it was a complete waste of time... or am I missing something?

cm1179 · 6 Dec 2010 at 22:33

SiriusB said:
''all it did was put me 90 minutes closer to death''

What possible theory could that lead to? It's another way of saying it was a complete waste of time... or am I missing something?

yes, it is a way of saying it was a waste of time but he explained how it didn't equate to being 90 minutes closer to death which on first thought would be a logical reasoning. something to do with living past the event and doubling chances of surviving longer than given time ........ or something

Lysander · 6 Dec 2010 at 22:34

AcidHell2 said:
I don't see how flatliners has anything to do with that theory.

You wouldn't.

cm1179 said:
yes, it is a way of saying it was a waste of time but he explained how it didn't equate to being 90 minutes closer to death which on first thought would be a logical reasoning. something to do with living past the event and doubling chances of surviving longer than given time ........ or something

Sounds like something related to an NDE. I wish I could help more, sounds like an interesting film.

Kenai · 6 Dec 2010 at 22:35

cm1179 said:
yes, it is a way of saying it was a waste of time but he explained how it didn't equate to being 90 minutes closer to death which on first thought would be a logical reasoning. something to do with living past the event and doubling chances of surviving longer than given time ........ or something

Sounds like he was just waffling a load of **** rather than explaining some deeply explored widely known concept.

cm1179 · 6 Dec 2010 at 22:37

Kenai said:
Sounds like he was just waffling a load of **** rather than explaining some deeply explored widely known concept.

i don't think he was waffling

Skeptic · 6 Dec 2010 at 22:48

hmm, I've tried to understand this. Thought about death not being pre-determined, etc. I think you have to give us more to go on.

Glaucus · 6 Dec 2010 at 23:02

Lysander said:
You wouldn't.

What's that meant to mean.
I can't remeber anything in the film that states as death is not pre determined, that watching a rubbish film doesn't bring you closer to death.

cm1179 · 6 Dec 2010 at 23:02

i think it was something to do with the more you see out of the day .in this instance, even if 90 minutes of the day was spent watching a film, even though it was not a good film, we still continued to live after it had finished. death not being pre-determined had to come into the theory and the chances of us continuing to live as opossed to being closer to death were greater. something about although technically we were 90 minutes older, the fact we were still living did not mean were closer to death ... or something along those lines

gee3000 · 6 Dec 2010 at 23:12

Death isn't a predefined moment in time so you can't be measurably closer to or further from it. Similarly you can't be closer to or further from tomorrow.

sanaxe1 · 6 Dec 2010 at 23:14

But you are 90minutes closer to death. As everybody dies at some point be that in 1day or 70 years time. You will still be 90minutes closer to death then before watching the film but the quality of the film would not of changed this.

Lysander · 6 Dec 2010 at 23:18

sanaxe1 said:
But you are 90minutes closer to death. As everybody dies at some point be that in 1day or 70 years time. You will still be 90minutes closer to death then before watching the film but the quality of the film would not of changed this.

Yes, I think that was kind of the point though.

Glaucus · 6 Dec 2010 at 23:19

Not so, if you didn't watch that film you could have gone down the shop and got killed by a car.

ben1977 · 6 Dec 2010 at 23:20

cm1179 said:
i can't remember the theory behind this. a couple of years ago, me and some mates watched a pretty shambolic film before we went into town. got chatting to some other friends down the town and the film in question (euro trip or something) came up and one friend said ''all it did was put me 90 minutes closer to death''. someone then explained a theory that this was not exactly true. he said that the fact you are still alive after the event, doesn't mean you are actually closer to death if you are looking at life in terms of measured times. i can't remember his theory but it sounded interesting, so interesting i forgot it does anyone know what i'm on about?

drink more before you go out.........

Grandmaster Fap! · 6 Dec 2010 at 23:56

So you lost 90 minutes watching some crud film but you could technically get that time back and more if the next day you suddenly started eating healthy and exercising, your life expectancy will increase

SuperCrofty · 7 Dec 2010 at 00:21

gee3000 said:
Death isn't a predefined moment in time so you can't be measurably closer to or further from it. Similarly you can't be closer to or further from tomorrow.

WINNER!

Vonhelmet · 7 Dec 2010 at 00:31

I walked out of 50 First Dates, if that helps you to understand the issue.

Vonhelmet · 7 Dec 2010 at 00:32

gee3000 said:
Death isn't a predefined moment in time so you can't be measurably closer to or further from it. Similarly you can't be closer to or further from tomorrow.

You can be closer or further from tomorrow, though :confused:

Tomorrow will be in 23 hours, 29 minutes.

In 23 hours, it will be just 29 minutes away.

this twisted my head

Capodecina

Capodecina