But in a world filled with so much absurd, ridiculous, patently UNSCIENTIFIC things, what makes this any different? Why are you all getting so upset about the scientific plausibility of this episode and not about the scientific plausibility of literally anything else that happens on this show?
Here's my thing about this line of thinking: Saying "this doesn't make sense in that universe" doesn't make sense because...it happened in that universe. It's on-screen, it happened. Saying "that character would never do that" makes sense, assuming that you're talking about an action that contradicts what we know about that character. Saying "a person would never do that," well, that's a whole other story. I don't see the value in questioning the logic of character action in a fictional work, unless, like I said, it goes against what's already been established about that character. The person isn't a real person, nothing they're doing is real. Who are we to argue with whatever they're doing or saying? They're under no obligation to follow the rules of our world.
Same goes for the idea at hand here. If there's a reason why it doesn't gel with the other ridiculous things on this show, then fine. But if the argument is "it's not scientifically accurate" then there's no ground to stand on. Our science is incomparable to DW science, and as far as I know there's nothing in DW canon that implies that this particular law of physics/biology/whatever carries over. And saying that something "doesn't fit with the rest of the universe" implies that you're applying a real-world framework. Why doesn't it fit? What about the DW universe suggests that this thing can't exist? That's not rhetorical, I'm really interested, since you all independently reached the same conclusion.
