Talk:Explosion

Article Name Change

Have they ever called it a "nuclear" explosion on the show? ... In light of tonight's episode, and Peter's revelation that he is the explosion, I nominate that we change the name of this article to simply the "Explosion", since there is nothing nuclear about it. Thoughts? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2006 (EST)

• The have used the word "bomb" to describe it. However, I do propose a change now, as opposed to later when we have more articles to fix. ---- 23:50, 4 December 2006 (EST)
• Perhaps just "The Explosion" would be sufficient. --Ted C 17:16, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Qualify Statements

I think there are some dubious statements in the article. They treat Peter's dream as an exact prophecy, when it might be something more symbolic than literal. I'm going to tone down the language a bit. --Ted C 17:15, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Good call, I was thinking the same thing. At this point we should just treat it as a vision which could be more symbolic than literal as you said. (Admin 17:17, 5 December 2006 (EST))

New lead text

"Destined to occur" makes it sound as if it's inevitable. We don't really know that it is.--Hardvice (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Time of Explosion

I was just reading on Wikipedia (scroll down to "Don't Look Back") that the explosion will take place at 11:52. Where does that info come from? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2007 (EST)

• I'm guessing Hiro's watch. I'd have to check. That said, since Hiro's watch is displaying the wrong date, I have no idea why they think it would be displaying the correct time. You'd have to assume he jumped exactly five weeks into the future, to the minute, and that seems an uncharacteristically sloppy assumption for Wikipedia.--Hardvice (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2007 (EST)
  • I've also heard talk (can't remember where) that Peter's watch (in his vision) displays a time. Could that be it? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2007 (EST)
    • Could be. But again, that relies on the fallacy that Peter's vision of the explosion necessarily equals the explosion. In either case, I think we're better off not speculating as to the time (unless maybe the NYPD detective's watch is visible. Or Ando's clock, which would be on Tokyo time.)--Hardvice (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2007 (EST)
• If it is Hiro's watch, then not only would you have to make an assumption about his time travel landing him at the same time of day as his departure, but you'd also have to account for the time change between Tokyo and EST. But it's also possible that there's a clock visible somewhere in the police station. Unfortunately, I can only access the recent episodes on NBC. Does anyone know if the earlier ones can still be seen online somewhere?--E rowe 11:54, 27 January 2007 (EST)
  • They question him at Isaac's apartment, not the police station (the paintings are still visible in the background). But yeah, it's worth a rewatch. I've got the old episodes still.--Hardvice (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2007 (EST)
    • Yup. It's the time on Hiro's watch. *rolleyes* Oh, Wikipedia...--Hardvice (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2007 (EST)
      • Is it clearly 11:52? They might have thrown in a subtle reference to seven minutes to midnight if it's 11:53.
        • It's digital, but I guess it's probably a bit before the explosion ... not a minute, but enough for the minute to change, I guess.--Hardvice (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2007 (EST)
          • Thanks for finding that. Silly Wikipedia... - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2007 (EST)
        • When Hiro jumps back to Japan after the explosion the clock in the subway reads 11:53. In the seconds before he leaps the time on that clock is rapidly changing--it looks like it starts at 11:48, but that might be showing the numbers after they've already started rolling. This only verifies that Hiro's watch reads the Japanese time. An interesting corollary from these points might be that Hiro's watch didn't tick at all for the whole time he was in future New York (much more than 4 minutes right?). On the other hand, that might be reading too much into incidental details.

It's irrelevant what his watch reads, because it's clearly incorrect in the aspect of the "present". His watch reads "October Two", when in actuality it's 8 Nov. Therefore his watch is reading his perspective, which would be in the "past" (2 Oct). So, you can't deduce from what his watch reads that it is the time in the "present".--Bob 20:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)