Tenet || Inversion Visualized || Death and Wounds #3 [SPOILERS]

[@RakibErick]

Why does it feel like Chris Nolan is running this channel bruh?

[@jeremiah-w7e]

trying to understand his own movie

[@Jp-bg3fc]

You'll be surprised, Tyler the creator runs this channel releasing instrument tracks and demos.

[@VelocityLP]

5:23 Oh god I only now noticed how you can see how the inside of his gas mask is just coated in what used to be Neil's face. Looks like they poured goddamn spaghetti sauce in the thing.

[@aden-lj7wb]

oh jesus...

[@Victorsandergamer]

well it's blood

[@KC_Smooth]

It’s crazy to think about how an inverted assassin would see his dead target on the ground getting up before being shot from his perspective.

[@manchmalpfosten8133]

Imaging pulling up to the scene and seeing your target alive, at that point you know you'd fail anyway and can just go home lol

[@sbraypaynt]

@@manchmalpfosten8133because of posterity, if the target was still alive in the future, I doubt the assassin would even make an attempt because what’s happened’s happened and what has happened is the target wasn’t assassinated. Only if there was a report of the target dying would the mission to kill them even be planned. An inverted assassin would not attempt the mission if the person wasn’t already dead because it means the mission never happened and therefore cannot have happened.

[@m4rcus988]

​@@manchmalpfosten8133what if target being alive is a result of you making th3 decision of not trying to take the shot in the first place

[@CinemaWins]

I agree that these are the rules the movie establishes, I just don't think they make sense. By this logic, if Neil had just been winged in the arm by the bullet, the wound would have started forming the second he left the last turnstile and would be restored (healed) once Volkov shot him (from Neil's perspective in inverted time.) Right? Why does the entropy of an object and its effect switch based on the final outcome? It's confusing that the injury flips on the timeline just because the target lives or dies. But I get that you can't be dead in your own past, so I'm really not disagreeing with you, but I am questioning Nolan's logic.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Yeah,..if Neil just got clipped, it would be an Oslo pick wound situation. And TP and Ives would of gotten to the gate and probably see inverted Neil wrestling with Volkov,..lol. But alas, it didn't go down like that. Initially, I thought about invoking the Grandfather Paradox. In the sense that if you are alive to do stuff you ( or your descendants) could not of Not existed in the past. And Block time, being what it is would just not allow you to be dead in your own past and 'knows' it. But I didn't wanna start rambling. I am glad you agree with the 'rules' though. My intent was to find some consistency among these scenarios. I know full well if I started asserting sci fi mumbo jumbo I'd be in a world of hurt.,.lol. So I stuck with what we saw and heard in the film as best I could. I am tip toeing around just as much as Nolan did. Who knows what conversations he had with Kip Thorne and how much he sorta 'ran' with it for 'coolness' sake. cheers

[@theredestbull]

same, the logic within the film is consitent, which is great. Also how would this apply to objects? I always wondered about that one building in Stalsk that was never there: coming forward or backward it always gets unblown and then blown again. Since it seems that, unless inverted, like the Saab, sorroundings are generally in flow of the 'winds', we can asume the building was not-inverted, but got inverted after getting hit with the inverted explosion, meaning kinetic energy transmitted with the inverted explosion made parts of the building inverted. One rule I think is overlooked is what happened if inverted and non-inverted identicals touch; the movie says 'annihalation'. If that means cease to exists, then inverted non-moving objects that are being uninverted by 'wind of entropy', like the debris of said building in Stalsk, would therefore occupy the same space as their inverted self and cease to exist. But when did they exist? If this can be answered there is no need to differentiate between mortal or non-mortal wounds.

[@casualcharlie1454]

Not sure if it helps, but maybe it has something to do with the "Dominate wind", maybe dying while inverted allows the forward time to reclaim your body or something as your opposing entropy has ceased. I'm honestly still relatively lost on the whole concept so take of it what you will.

[@jakobatredies1114]

@@casualcharlie1454 that is the same theory I subscribe to when regarding dead Neil. In that dying stopped his Inversion and he rejoins the forward flow of that timeline.

[@theredestbull]

@@jakobatredies1114 which means his body would appear out of nowhere when observing the area going forward through time. Also that would mean his inverted self that's dying and his dead body would instantly occupy the same space or there should be a non-inverted dead neil from that point on, going forward

[@DarionDAnjou]

i want to add some clarity to the explanation of "where did the bullet go?" that shot Neil at the end. One phenomenon Nolan makes clear at a few points throughout the movie is that objects of opposing entropy can transfer their entropy from one object to another - especially upon impact. the rear view window of the BMW is definitive "proof" that intensity of impact matters to how much and how quickly entropy is transferred. this also explains why forward TP and reverse TP can fight each other at all. When exchanging blows and close contact some entropy is transferred. Remember when (46:25) Reverse TP kicks himself from the floor, and Forward TP's arms flail awkwardly for a few moments. Forward TP even looks at his own arm as if it's possessed. It's because some of that reverse entropy has transferred to the point of contact which is TP's arms and they are momentarily discombobulated, experiencing localized reverse entropy much like the rear view mirror on the BMW. Ok, back to Neil and the bullet that shoots him. Armed with the understanding that entropy can be transferred on impact, especially severe impact, then it's pretty obvious that bullet was moving forward in time until the moment it impacted Neil's skull at which point Neil's reverse entropy and significantly larger mass would be enough to reverse the entropy of that bullet entirely, and now the bullet is lodged inside Neil's brain, moving backward in time along with him. To the question of where did that bullet that shot Neil go? The answer is lodged into Neil's brain there on the floor with dead Neil, until which point the forward entropy winds of the world around them would see fit for him to decompose and disappear into the ether. To the question of how long into the past did Neil's body - and the now reverse entropied bullet in his brain - lay there, we can assume that similar to a body decomposing when left in the elements, the "entropic decomposition" of competing entropies - the dead body "swimming upstream" against forward entropy as it were - might happen at a faster rate than any typical natural decomposition, comparable to any kind of chemical or biological reaction we know of, like incineration, or even being underwater, that would make a dead body or any other materials re-absorb into the ecosystem at an accelerated rate.

[@JinKee]

So if you find a dead body when you're planting a time capsule, you should hold your hand over its foot and see if you can undrop it to check if the body is inverted. If it is inverted be very careful around it.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

I wanna see Volkov do that in the Director's cut! Lol.

[@samwallaceart288]

Yeah what happens if Russian dude just chucks body over the side of the platform?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@samwallaceart288 good question.

[@justinfung4351]

@@samwallaceart288 I think, within the logic of block time, that the Russian dude could never have, otherwise there wouldn't be a dead body.

[@samwallaceart288]

@@justinfung4351 Circular Logic demonstrated visually

[@DysClaimer]

If I'm understanding the way that causality works in the movie, I think that once a person starts fighting an inverted opponent, they know they can't have killed that opponent in that fight, because they have already experienced proof they didn't. Basically getting into a fight is stupid, because you can't really win. As demonstrated in this video, if I am inverted, I can walk down the street toward the dead body of my normal time foe at 5:01, and raise my gun just as the clock strikes 5:00 and their body leaps up off the street and I (from their perspective) suck a bullet out of their head. That's just fine, and that's what I will observe having killed them. At the moment of death, their dead future lies in my past, which I've already observed. And as I continue to walk off at 4:59 I can see them, not yet dead, walking towards the spot where I just killed them. But I can't get into a fight with someone, and after a struggle kill them. Why? Because if I kill them, that means that they will be dead in their future, which is my past, and I've already seen they weren't. If I'm inverted, and start fighting with my normal time foe at 5:01, I can't then kill them at 5:00 after a 1 minute struggle. If they had died at 5:00, they could not have been alive at 5:01 to have been fighting me, and they just were. So once we start fighting, I know that I can't have killed them, because I've already experienced proof that I didn't. If I am the normal time participant, and I encounter my inverted enemy at 4:59, same problem. When 5:00 rolls around, I know it's impossible to kill this guy, because he was still (for him) around at 4:59 to fight me. If I'd killed him, then he'd have been dead by then, so I know I failed to kill him. But I can't know for sure that I won't die, because I haven't experienced my own future yet. Maybe he kills me at 5:01. I have no way to know he didn't. My inverted opponent knows if he did or not, because he's already experienced that, but I have no way to be sure. And it's the same for both people in the fight. They know they can't win, and know they might die if they keep fighting. If the participants understand what's going on, they should both be trying to disengage as soon as possible.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Sounds about right.

[@Moley1Moleo]

I think you have it mostly correct, but you are wrong to conclude that getting into a fight is therefore stupid. Your intention is only 1 causal factor into the future, but it is one that you control. The fact that you *plan* to fight inverted enemies, means that in your future, you're more likely to actually do so, and therefore more likely to hinder them. Indeed, if you have the earnest plan of "I will shoot at body/head height at any inverted enemy corpses I see", that will mean that sometimes you'll do it, and therefore you'll be a bit more often find yourself taking aim and killing those enemies. However, you still need to fight them, because perhaps they would have achieved more of their goals if you let them act without your interference.

[@mr.mrowmusic8255]

John doesn't understand this during the fight, in fact you can see him at the beginning of the fight not understand it but as it goes on get the hang of it, and the inverted one be better at fighting at the beginning and worse at the end, due to him getting used to it

[@ClockworkGearhead]

Fighting doesn't necessarily have the goal of killing.

[@lekhakaananta5864]

But if we follow the rules presented in this video, you can severely injure them without killing them. Instead of trying to absolutely kill them, you could still put them into a coma. That would mean from your perspective, the moment you make that decisive strike, they fall down into a coma. Some time later, they heal and recover from that coma. From your inverted opponent's perspective, they'll start healthy and then start to develop a headache, which in fact un-heals into a coma. They fall into a coma until you come along and un-punch their head and then they're suddenly awake from the coma. You see, by this logic we realize that Nolan didn't have to carve out special rules for mortal wounds. This "can't die in your own past" thing is probably a concession to have some semblance of the concept of death that movie-goers are familiar with. You can totally have a self-consistent death that flows with the direction of the origin rather than target. You'd simply have the targets coming into consciousness from the inverted point of view, no different than coming out of a coma or being born.

[@BoomTheGuardian]

Could you do a video about how inverted and uninverted people are able to communicate and pass information to one another, and the psychology going on in such interactions? Like, I'd be interested in seeing a detailed breakdown of how Sator decides to handle the inverted interrogation, and how he deduces what to say to backtrack from the information he recieves

[@KilitWithFire]

Sator is more aware of how and what to ask when in the red blue room , if you get why he automatically shoots kat right when it shows his perspective, bc he knows its moving backwards for TP, so the first thing sator does will be the last thing TP will see, so in his mind at that point not understanding, he gave up answers right in the beginning without even knowing he did, and that's how sator knew how to get him to talk , hence , the first thing you hear TP say when in sators perspective is "its in the glove box in the bmw" but from TP point of view he hadn't said that yet, so when sator asked him , TP was confused bc he didn't understand he was talking but everything he said , sator already heard it from his perspective bc, and once TP saw the bullet hole in the glass, he knew she was gonna get shot cause , so he lied of course, up to that point TP had a very little understanding still of the concept

[@trande6136]

I think part of it is, as TP puts it, instinct. It’s possible that interaction with objects of opposing entropies could more or less force your body to commit to the motions and go on autopilot. Think of it like this: if you begin to unDrop a bullet, what happens if you change your mind and stop the motion halfway? Or if you unDrop a bullet and then attempt to drop it again? In the latter case, then you truly ARE asking it to magically jump into your hand. So the interrogation could be this entirely, but on reconsideration it’s more likely a mixture of this with the analysis given by @JamesKWinchester. Bottom line, Sator pulls off an inverted interrogation so smoothly and with zero confusion that it’s almost disturbing.

[@vivaelguion]

Not having to do with the film itself, but I'm looking forward to make a conlang (constructed language) specifically for that matter, involving palindromic words marked for word order and thus forming palindromic phrases and sentences, complete with a non-linear script to make palindromic paragraphs and texts, written in khipu-like tools to build palindromic books. What do you guys think?

[@D_Gomez113]

KEEP TENET ALIVE WITH THESE VIDEOS!!!!!!

[@commentpost907]

These videos are works of art themselves. Amazing deconstruction.

[@metalore]

Soon colleges will offer Tenet 2001 and Tenet 1001 courses, in that order.

[@tlabd9582]

Okay so just to get this right, Neil's death from his perspective: He goes underground, saw TP going backwards and goes outside, Lock the door from the inside, and then suddenly, he is killed by a bullet that goes backwards to his head (or his head just suddenly explodes and a bullet emerged from it)

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Thats pretty much it, lol.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@Janusz Kubrik his actions need to be all in reverse order in order for him to help since he is inverted. He begins at the End of the battle , the explosions happens, reversed , he runs inside, sees them fighting in reverse. Closes the door once they reverse out( since in normal time it would be him Opening the door). then is in the way of the bullet gets shot and dies. the hero continues to reverse out of the tunnel. Neil's body is dead streaming into the past.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@Janusz Kubrik I believe they were. Which is why Neil had to stand there holding it open while protagonist exited. and why when he got there it was closed again and he had to break in first.

[@brainloading5543]

​@@WelbyCoffeeSpillso you're saying that basically, Neil has been living his entire life with a bullet inside his head

[@Moley1Moleo]

​@@brainloading5543 - no, the bullet is in his future. He lives his entire life until he gets an inverted (from his perspective) bullet goes backwards through his head and he dies from it. Neil was going backwards at the time, so from our forward perspective, there were 2 neils: * Normal Neil going forward in time (ok his life is much more complicated than that but we'll look past that) * Neil's corpse going backwards in time. These are the same Neil, and we experience them both at the same time due to time travel, and they eventually combine in a turnstyle to never be seen again. (Ok we do see him again due to the layers of timetravel, but the point remains that from his perspective he doesn't have the bullet wound until the end of his life, and from our perspective, the bullet wound is in a corpse.)

[@JackHarlowComboMeal]

Always a blast getting another one of these! This version of time travel Nolan's concocted is really fun to just explore the possibilities of. A fascinating concept that you help illustrate and explore really well 👍

[@omegaasura21]

Very interested in Sator's gold and messages. How would the future folks know to get in contact with him? Very interesting

[@Emwurst]

It's one of those ontological things. How does TP know to form Tenet? Because he founded it in the future and informed his past self. It didn't originate anywhere. It's a self contained loop that happened either due to some divine puppeteers, or the natural 'desire' of the universe to stay obstinate over time.

[@jameslever3497]

I think the future people decided to put it somewhere the gold would be found by someone capable and crazy enough to follow their instructions.

[@LUIS117MIKE]

I want to see what the document says about the deal with Sator

[@Lex_Nocturna]

Ah! the bootstrap paradox. Don't try to solve , there's no answer for it is a causal loop.

[@jameslever3497]

@@Lex_Nocturna true. But it’s till important to see understand what Nolan wants to communicate. To understand this film you need to pretend that paradoxes can can happen if they are complex enough.

[@DamascusVT]

I never actually noticed that TP had been grazed by that bullet in the opera, that's pretty wild. As an aside, I think the rule this actually follows is this: if an inverted and normal object damage each other, ONE of them must behave in a way that runs opposite to their own entropy. I think that way is probably random EXCEPT if causality is violated. So this depends less on how bad a wound is, but simply whether the target actually dies. So a wound that ends up killing someone can only travel in one direction, but any other wound can travel in either direction, determined at random. I think that's why TP's wound travels opposite his own entropy, but Kat's travels along her own entropy.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

I agree. It is not the specific of if it is severe or not, But what that effect would Do to causality.

[@Firestorm189]

If we take TENET to it's logical conclusion, along with the line of "this whole operation is one big pincer movement" that Neil says, then the whole film of Tenet is simultaneously the first "battle" of the temporal cold war, and the final battle. Those inverted objects are battles that will take place in the (or other) protagonists future(s) and our past, and it all culminates in the plot of Tenet after the pieces of the algorith have been invented, hidden, captured, stolen, hidden etc etc.

[@ClockworkGearhead]

One ending of it, sure.

[@OCinneide]

When the scientist woman says the detritus of a coming war I believe she means the one around the nuclear bomb.

[@bjcooper4365]

Man you just keep on releasing high quality videos explaining every question I didn’t know I needed answered lol thank you so much

[@ceztko]

I'd love to tell Nolan to watch your videos to keep the sequel of Tenet consistent with them.

[@ceztko]

@Elon Musk the sequel is in some nuclear test site right now, going back trough whole paleolithic. If you are dare enough, go get it!

[@j.k.1239]

Nolan does not do sequel for his original movies.

[@ceztko]

@@j.k.1239 Nodal made an interview where he was possibilist about a sequel

[@chrisbell292]

Tenet *is* the sequel; the first movie is being worked on.

[@gredangeo]

@@ceztko It would be interesting. The creation of the device would be cool. So far, time related movies are on a ten year basis. Starting with Memento (2000), and Inception (2010), and now Tenet (2020). So it would make sense for something else involving some time shenanigans, would be a release date of 2030. Not necessarily a sequel. Hopefully he accomplishes that streak.

[@dhanush3557]

Hey, please make a video on that annihilation thing(What happens if opposite moving object's/people's particles come in contact with each other and why? )

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

That will probably be touched on in the next video on Inverted Objects, like bodies, bullets, and Gold.

[@dhanush3557]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill Looking forward to it

[@Mu-zw5bm]

That one of the easiest part for me, it just matter and antimatter annihilate each other scenario but on earth scale

[@compad6951]

@@Mu-zw5bm it does become quite fussy with inverted people being made of antimatter, but if two straight opposites do interact, they null each other, even with time and not spin. I agree with ya

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@Alan T. next video i will explore that. There are a few ideas out there.

[@horsyhs2587]

In "Mortal wound" section at 2:05, if we go through the scene from blue guy perspective it would be this way: "I fire a shot and my shot resurrected red guy". What about situation, when a blue guy from his perspective is: "I fire a shot and kill that red guy"? And one more question about non-lethal wound: if blue guy chops the leg off from red guy, how it would be from the red guy perspective? "I wake up one day and realize, there is right leg missing"? "And after some time I met a guy who magically restore my leg with a swing of an axe'?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

The key takeaway from this vid is how the Universe maintains Causality. It won't allow paradoxes. No mortal wound or not, it is about not breaking people's history ultimately. "What about situation, when a blue guy from his perspective is: "I fire a shot and kill that red guy"?" This situation would not happen as it would break the red guy's Causality. He cannot be dead in his past, otherwise he would not be there to be shot". It's like if you told your friend to meet you at the store, but "something" happened and he couldn't make it. You cannot walk off a cliff and float in the air, physics won't allow it. Same thing here. "if blue guy chops the leg off from red guy,". Similar thing. Both Red and Blue's perspective MUST agree. Red guy wouldn't go through life without a leg like that if he wasn't born that way. If Red guy is alive and whole before( from his perspective) he runs into Blue guy with an Ax, then there is no way his leg would have been chopped off prior. It would break causality. It 'Could' be something where just before the swing, his leg falls off and then heals again. It's a bit silly, but there is precedence for it in the film. Possible sure, probable,..not likely, imho.

[@horsyhs2587]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill Thanks for the detailed answer. All those limitations kinda brings me to conclusion that there is absolutely no free will in that universe; all events are hardly determined at the very beginning. Like if inverted robber comes into place where uninverted policeman peacefully sleeps in his own bed, robber has a hard intention to stab him with a knife (not to pull out the knife from his chest, but stab); there is no way that a robber (from his own point of view) can stab a policeman into his heart. It's just forbidden by the rules of this universe. So, there is no free will for the poor robber.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@horsyhs2587 Here's the thing though. That situation would not even occur to even give the robber that choice. It may play out like this. So the Robber's future is the inverted Cop's past. The events happen simultaneously. If the robber was to sneak in with the intention of stabbing the cop, the cop would have already dealt with it from his point of view. So the two would 'meet' and collide in a sense. As the robber climbs in, he'd find himself being attacked and fighting with a cop moving backwards, just like the Airport fight. Then things would happen where for whatever reason you are not winning and run away,..maybe crash jump back out the window. the cop , backwards, lays down and is asleep. Now from the cop's point of view, he was sleeping, then woken by a noise outside( you un-jumping out the window , which unbreaks from his POV). He leaps up and is attacked, now, by you, inverted to him. Then, ultimately, you separate and unclimb out the window. I agree though, the Tenet universe seems to subscribe to determinism. Even in our own real life, there is debate on that. There is no way to know if we truly have free will, since we cannot know the future. It is enough that we 'feel' as though we are making choices though. And those choices are what shaped the Un-Changable universe.

[@anti2229]

“How the F### are you apes trying to move time, when you’re STANDING in it.” -Alien from Rick and Morty

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

" I Vill mess with time! I vill mess wit Time!" ;p

[@jdkingsley6543]

that's interesting that despite the ability to time travel, death is still so absolute.

[@radroscoe1455]

So Niel died forward in his time and backwards on normal time. So Niel's body is already been there until the event happens. My question is what if someone in normal time moved Niel's body prior to the events? So in normal time, Niel's body would not be there when the event comes.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

It is a good question. This goes for other inverted objects as well. I try to explore that in other videos on the channel. The short answer is, that just didn't happen. Perhaps his body decomposed and fell through the grate into the pit, meaning from our view, his body rose up and landed on he grate. Some others suggest Tenet came back eventually to get the body while inverted. Meaning from our view, they un-removed or placed the body there.

[@radroscoe1455]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill Thank you for your opinion. I have been thinking about thier world. I think there shouldn't be a decomposition period. The body should disintigrate immidiately or for only a brief. This is just a 'what if' question. Let's make a scenario on their world. On a busy street., an inverted guy with the worst of luck got run over by a truck. As soon as the driver stopped he saw the guy he ran over alive and walking backwards. Question is, what about the period of time "before" he got run over? If there was already a body in the middle of the street then drivers would have just avoid him or someone will pull him to the side or someone already called an ambulance. Anyway, it's just a movie but a very good one. Keep your vids up. I already subscribed. Thank you. If you still making videos about this, I already given a thought of my answer to this that really make sense to the movie.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@radroscoe1455 you are welcome. the movie has many questions and ideas that are fun to think about. I Do plan to make more videos. I just need to find the time. Cheers!

[@HinataUchiha_22]

I was literally listening to highest in the room before watching this and thought my phone was broke for a second But other than that still confused 😂

[@ChrisParrishOutdoors]

So from our(red's) perspective Neil's body was just down there for however long it takes to decompose, slowly recomposing until the moment he popped back up.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Yes, that is a basic explanation. There are other ways this could have gone down for it to work out the way it does too. Maybe TP or Tenet inverted and went in there before the battle to retrieve his body( which would mean placing it there in normal time). Or perhaps as the body decomposed it fell through or off the grate floor into the pit( which means it flies up and into position in normal time).

[@renjiro_9666]

When the bullet get trough Neil's head, the unheal is instantaneous, he can barely feel anything from that mortal wound, also we see in his helmet a lot of blood because the bullet was inverted from his perspective. This mean that the bullet got though the back of his head first and the wound expanded in the front.

[@kirilltikhomirov1260]

So, initially I was thinking that the movie was a bit random on the direction that wounds flow too. After seeing this video, I definitely agree, that there are rules to it, the established rules just don't make much sense to me. If there are mortal wounds which definitely flow into your own direction, then this should honestly always be the case with any wounds. Because, wounds that seem to randomly appear, from your own perspective, and "Un-heal" pose a great logical question/inconsistency (that can technically be answered with determinism and no free will, but still): imagine you, as an inverted person, exit a turnstile and get stabbed immediately (perhaps a few seconds, perhaps a few minutes after exiting) just like TP got stabbed in Oslo. That wound on the inverted person will go forward, but from a forward time perspective that wound will exist for a very short time before the person will reverse into a turnstile, so what happens now. Does, from the perspective of the person, that wound carry so far into the past that they start randomly bleeding before they even inverted themselves?? Or would the wound just randomly appear right after they inverted themselves and get unstabbed immediately without having any time to Un-heal?? This inconsistency would've been easily avoided if you would just make it so any object, including a person, only gets affected in their own time.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

"a very short time before the person will reverse into a turnstile, so what happens now. " I think in this case, the wound goes forward, correct, and at the moment your inverted self un-Exits the turnstile, is when your normal self Enters on the red side. You cease to exist past that point. You disappear like Sator did, so there is no more 'forward' you to experience that wound, only Inverted you. Maybe you'd pop out and immediately be in pain, heh. But yeah,..the timings are all over the place. I kinda feel that Nolan just had a bunch of 'cool' visual ideas he liked and morphed his story around that loosely.

[@JimboButthill]

Yea honestly this is what was thinking so I doubted the validity of the whole video after it

[@TheMrMxyspptlk]

Neil's death and the fate of the bullet: an inverted bullet is in Neil's head as he lies down dead. Here is the explaination, from the regular past to the future (red point of view): 1. Neil's inverted body assembles from thin air, un-rots and lies undisturbed in the cave. An inverted bullet is in his head inside the open wound. 2. As Volkov is about to shoot, Neil rises to life. The inverted bullet moves on its way out of Neil's head, healing the wound as it passes by. 3. The regular bullet is fired by Volkov and meets its inverted pair at Neil's head. They both annihilate: the regular bullet has vanished in the past becoming the inverted one. This is what happens at a turnstile: a regular-inverted pair meet at a turnstile and disappear (remember Sator fleeing into the past in Tallinn). Neil's head must have acted like a turnstile, which makes sense. As you learn from the movie, an inverted object in a regular environment is subject to the dominant "wind of entropy" of the environment. This "wind" pushes to align the object entropy to that of the environment. The inverted object can somewhat resist to the "wind" because of the radiation. This must be true the other way around: a small regular object embedded into a massive inverted one should be subject to an inverted "wind of entropy". The regular object without the special feature of a "radiation" shall align pretty quickly to the inverted wind. Because of this, Volkov's regular bullet inverts as it hits Neil's head and goes into the past, becoming the inverted bullet stuck in Neil's dead head. 4. Neil is alive, healty e no bullet is around. He back-hops away, out of the cave. Agree? Thanks for your incredible videos!

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

I have had discussions about that. And I even jokingly said he had a mini turnstile in his head. It's a good idea though. Just not something I could definitely point to from the movie. I like it because it doesn't imply the bullet just ceased to exist. It is still there, just inverted.

[@TheMrMxyspptlk]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill Really? That's nice. You know, Nolan stressed out many times in interviews that coherence should not be sought in the movie, but I belive (and your videos are not a secondary reason) that the degree of consistence is nevertheless very high. I see Nolan spending 5 years refining the concept for the sake of personal curiosity and trying to squize the most of it into an enjoyable movie. Even if the movie contains some science gibberish, I see a limited use of "poetic license". That's so intriguing.

[@scienceium5233]

Turnstile in a head is so mortal lol

[@GamezGuru1]

this is the dumbest explanation ever, with zero evidence in the movie. object cannot become inverted without a turnstile.

[@affebanane3039]

No

[@joeycruz7667]

This is an interesting concept! I'm not sure if my read on the rules differs from yours, but mine centers around the order in which things happen and the inversion state of individual elements. I think Neil's death exists logically within the rules established earlier in the film because his death was not pre-determined from his POV, but rather something that happened unexpectedly in the moment. My theory goes: Volkov's gun/bullet are not inverted, but Neil is. In forward-moving time, at the moment the gun fires, the bullet passes thru inverted Neil's head, exits the back and basically falls away, having disrupted its path toward the Protag's head. But, from inverted-Neil's perspective, that's happening in reverse. He runs in, holds the door open, then closes it, and at that exact moment, the non-inverted bullet jumps up and passes thru his head, back to front, and back into the non-inverted gun. So even though Volkov's POV has him shooting inverted-Neil in the face, he's actually killed by a shot in the back of his head, because the bullet's traveling backwards. (Which is why his faceplate is covered with blood afterwards - the exit wound is in his face. Same as when Kat gets shot - her stomach wound is so huge because it's the exit wound - the result of being shot in the back.)

[@lieutenantbites5739]

One thing in the movie that always bugged me was a building in the final fight sequence. At the same time, the top and bottom of the building are blown up in different directions. So half the building was destroyed flowing to the past, and half was destroyed normally. So did the construction workers get a bunch of rubble and litter it around the area so that that half could be un-destroyed later? When was the building ever fully completed if half of it was destroyed backwards? I love this movie, but I don't think there's a solid explanation for that.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

It would be the same explanation for the holes in the glass. Did they build the room with holes in it already?! The closest we get to an 'explanation' is when Neil is in the cargo container talking about how our flow of entropy dominates. I tried to explore some of that here. kzbin.info/www/bejne/opK1Yaioi9ecoa8

[@JekPorkbricks]

I understood the movie well enough when it came out, but these are still some fantastic videos!

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Thanks! Making these videos is also a way for myself to wrap my head around stuff. I swear, I still don't know who is who and what is really going on in that opening Opera scene,..lol.

[@JekPorkbricks]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill This video actually made me realize I hadn't really thought that much about the different rules regarding mortal and non-mortal wounds. About the Opera: Sator sent both the corrupt police force and his men (the terrorists) to find the piece of the Algorithm (so they were shooting at each other but Sator doesn't care). The police then place bombs to make it look like the "terrorists" were terrorists instead of people looking for something. Because TP handed over the Algorithm to his own men, the ones that took the escape route, it eventually got safely in the hands of the Ukranian government where it needed to be stolen later. Probably because Sator heard about how the siege went and that his men were killed and his police force returned empty-handed, he suspected there were secret agents. So later he, when inverted, sent his own men to deliver those agents in a van and to capture them after the Siege. I don't know how he knew/arranged the last part though.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@JekPorkbricks That is more complicated than the actual main plot of the movie,..lol. What's crazy to think now too, is that , like you mention, Sator heard or knew about what happened ahead of time and sent the van dudes. It may be so complicated because what we are actually seeing unfold is not just an extraction, but a layer of efforts already based on Future knowledge , all trying to out-do one another to better their outcome!

[@JekPorkbricks]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill It did take me some time to wrap my mind around the Opera scene as well. But yeah your last paragraph sums it up. Sator knew both his teams failed but he still had to send them for continuity's sake. And TP's orders from the CIA probably came from himself as well (his TENET organisation who was also monitoring the siege at the time and he sent Neil to save himself.) TP also specifically knew that the siege was a blind to vanish the Well-Dressed Man, and in turn to take his bag which contained the Algorithm, though TP at the time did not know what the Algorithm was.

[@grantwilliams2650]

Cap

[@Mr47steam]

you have to remember that unlike a bullet, a knife is both stabbed, and taken out of the body. Whether you are a forward moving observer or an inverted observer there is a knife being both put into and taken out of the protagonist.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

very good point too. There has been discussion on the 'direction' of objects playing a factor in effects as well. Very compelling thoughts and worth thinking about.

[@affebanane3039]

The bullet moves the same way a to b and b to a

[@Mr47steam]

@@affebanane3039 the bullet enters and stays inside the body, the knife is both stabbed and pulled out of the body

[@affebanane3039]

@@Mr47steam If you look at this from red the bullet would leave the wound. a to B. From blue it would be b to a. And the same with the knife. Knife goes in and out. Knife goes out and in.

[@Mr47steam]

@@affebanane3039 the act of stabbing in red is the same as the act of taking the blade out in blue. In both directions you're stabbed. Unlike a bullet which penetrates in red, but comes out and "fixes" the wound in blue.

[@AnilKumar-xl2te]

Understanding Nolan’s movies is devastating to our brains

[@vipulyadav2996]

This channel is a masterpiece

[@vetoland92]

The king is back!

[@nathanielvirgo]

Regarding "there is no instance where you are dead before you are alive from your point of view": one possible exception is in the final battle, when there is an unseen opponent firing inverted rockets at un-inverted Ives and crew. The red team take that person out with a rocket launcher. If the assailant was inverted that means from their own point of view they suddenly materialised in the explosion and started firing rockets. Then presumably afterwards they went back to the bad guy base and everyone was like "who the hell is that?". (It's possible it was a non-inverted person using an inverted rocket launcher, though.)

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

"If the assailant was inverted that means from their own point of view they suddenly materialised in the explosion and started firing rockets" It was probably a normal soldier using inverted rockets like you mention. But even still,...Red team firing on the soldier may not have killed him but the explosion and devastation would, in inverted time, create a window where the inverted soldier could not have fired during that time. The soldier would run up the stairs, see the room burning and have to wait for it to unexplode to continue firing, which may be the rocket that we saw him launch. Red team can use this time to get by. Basically messing with his 'past' to allow their future to safely go by.

[@YDG666]

so this means kate healed overtime and instead using the Sator's Rotas again to avoid facing him and compromising something in the future they decided to wait 2 weeks and use the freeport invasion plan because the security was weaker 2 weeks ago than right now when Kate got shot... now I got it even more thanks to your explanation on every video you made =)

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Glad they help! I am working on another visualizing the logistics of getting aboard the IceBreaker ship and doing the end Battle!

[@KilitWithFire]

I also wanted to point out something, in the begging were the scientist is showing PT the bullets, she stands both of them straight up, asks him can he tell, and then as it cuts back to her about to show how it "Flys uo to her hand" if you notice right before, the bullet had changed position, to its side...it may be a reach, but possible different realities? All existing until the person choosing commits to the choice

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

in my other video on Entropic Wind, I go into how a broken bullet hole could 'appear' before being unshot, so as to avoid it going forever into the past until it was made in a factory. The bullet changing position would be something similar. I do like the idea of all possibilities , a super position, until it collapses into reality. It's a bit diffrent than a Block universe, which I am a fan of, but still is cool. Or,...it's just an Editing Mistake. ;p

[@hadzimhma]

FINALLY. Someone found a solution. btw nice remix

[@nicolaslabra2225]

my proposal is that, what volkov does from Neil`s perspective, is pull a bullet lodged in the back of his helmet, through is head into his gun, and from volkolvs perspective, he shoots a bullet through neil`s head wich seals the bullet hole behind it, sort of healing the wound, and lodging itself into the back plate of the helmet, mechanically it makes sense, but perhaps its not consistent with the logic of the movie, still, the plot needs this, so i`ll happily concede

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

I dig it. The bullet hole and head wound would of had to instantly appear and get sealed as the bullet past through from Volkov's perspective. Then Neil can happily invert backwards out the tunnel.

[@TheMrMxyspptlk]

I see. Anyway there must be a consistent explaination for a scenario with the bullet stuck in Neil's dead head. Otherwise, the whole Stalks 12 clash could be possible only if it was a pass-through bullet, which doesn't seem right.

[@spliter88]

@@TheMrMxyspptlk bullet doesn't have to end up stuck in his dead head tho. Let's use forward time: Volkov shoots neil that's getting up from the ground, healing a wound and the visor, the bullet gets lodged at the back of the helmet. Then later on let's say the inverted neil grabs the bullet from his helmet, sighs, then touches the bump on his helmet, then looks at the bullet and just drops it on the ground, as neil runs backwards underground and disappears into the turnstile. Now from Inverted Neil's perspective: He leaves the turnstile and runs across the battlefield. A smushed bullet jumps into his hand, he looks at it, then checks his helmet for a dent and finds it at the back, he sighs, knowing what that means, and places the bullet in the dent. Later on, he's at the door, and jumps in front of volkov, the bullet un-smushes, rips through his head and visor, and neil falls down dead. This explanation makes sense but is not consistent with other damage in the movie since that's pretty much impossible. You can either have a non-dead neil running around, or you can have bullet-holes before bullets, but not both.

[@TheMrMxyspptlk]

@@spliter88 very nice and it seems to me that it does fit the rules. (Reverse direction:) You have a non-dead Neil running around and no bullet-holes before the bullet. (?)

[@RakibErick]

So you are telling me you are not Christopher Nolan ai?

[@Kolenich]

Still not explianed, if you die being inverted (like Neil did), would your corpse stream forever into the past? Like from normal perspective your corpse will slowly restore from its decayed state (muscles will grow on your skeleton, then flesh etc.) until you will be UNkilled? That part is a little confusing... Also, what about guy in the final battle being entombed in restored wall?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

You are referring to inverted objects, like people , the lab junk, and Sator's Gold. I plan to explore that next video.

[@Moley1Moleo]

The 'dominant entropy' idea might wash away their bodies with time, meaning they have limited impact on the past. However, let's ignore that and assume that the body parts remain mostly inverted and keep travelling into the past. From the perspective of the inverted solider that got imploded by a forward rocket, their gore and bone fragments would decay and crumble into dust in their future (which is our past). Dust that was likely part of the sand and chemicals that went into making the concrete in the first place. Running it forward now, perhaps that concrete block was make a couple years ago, and placed there. The body parts of this soldier slowly materialise as they undecay from dust into fresh pieces of flesh and bone fragments in side the bricks and in the dirt. The explosion then sends these inverted pieces flying together to reassemble into a body, which then walks backwards and un-deploys from the battlefield. It might sound crazy that we'd get so 'lucky' for the body to reassemble, but that is the way of reversed entropy. Like a pile of inverted glass shards unshattering spontaneously and forming a pristine glass.

[@kenthsaya-ang3718]

How about the glasses with holes? Were the glasses have always been built with a hole with them?

[@haythamalexander]

@@kenthsaya-ang3718 No. This is explained by the "winds of entropy" theory. The glasses would be built normally without damage. Then, at some point in forward time flow, the hole would gradually appear a little before the event and then UN-damage itself during the event. From the perspective of an inverted bullet though, the bullet would make a hole in the glasses, and then that hole would gradually disappear going backwards intime (as like it "appeared" going forward in time)

[@jerrysstories711]

Any way that I can work out the logic of time-inverted weapons, a guy travelling backward would see a bunch of wounded people attacking him, and he's heal them by sucking the bullets out of their wounds with his gun. That said, omg I don't think I've ever been as fascinated with any movie more than this pinnacle of Nolanness. I've never been the fanfic-writing type, but oooh my Tenet tempts me.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

it's a great exercise for the brain. Trying to keep things in order and making logical sense. I think that's why I like it, it makes me really focus on the puzzle of it all. And trying to find the 'edges' of its mechanics. I never searched, but I wonder if there is some tent fan-fic group out there somewhere geeking out,.lol.

[@trande6136]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill I glanced at the Tenet subreddit and found that someone had come up with a “legally distinct“ alternative to Tenet in book form, called “Timemit right.“ it’s also accompanied by its own pdf explaining its own take on the theoretical science, such as being blind due to photons leaving your eyes - then remedied by something called a “Free Will Suit.“

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@trande6136 i actually saw that. Even purchased a copy :) Love the fandom.

[@nathansvn717]

At 5:06 you mentioned Opera Wound. Was TP also shot from the inverted bullet ? (I never noticed that before)

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

yes,... at 3:15 . Originally I missed this too. But when making the video I noticed it and it was inverted too. Really threw my gears out of whack for awhile, heh.

[@nathansvn717]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill woah. So many little details I'm still finding out about. Also, what could be the explanation for TP getting hit with an inverted bullet and healing instantaneously whereas if the same inverted bullet is shot on a wall or mirror then in forward time actually the bullet hole had already formed sometime in the past and then gets unshot in the future. This isn't instant. So why this same logic isn't applied in this scene when TP is hit with an inverted bullet? If this logic was applied then a wound had to form on his shoulder first and then he goes on to get "healed" when hit from an inverted bullet.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@nathansvn717 I mention this at 5:42 as well as in the #2 video on the "Winds' idea. The timing of how long things take to be affected by 'wind' is all over the place. So far I have not found a consistent pattern.

[@rafizoshunen]

I think TP did not got shot in the opera. The bullet only grazed the armor. The lab scene also mentioned that inverted bullet wound is “not pretty” (like in Kat’s case) and TP was “extremely lucky”

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@rafizoshunen in the opera when his shoulder gets slipped, we see a flash of red blood, so I believe he did get hit. But since it is inverted, it must have appeared seconds before it was unshot and restored. Protagonist doesn't know anything about inversion yet, so he probably thought it 'almost' hit him, since there was no trace of the wound afterwards. Which is why he tells the scientist lady, Barbara, that he was almost hit.

[@honestcommenter8424]

3:33 I have a problem with this scene, if Niel was inverted, how can he leave the scene running down the stairs in normal motion? Shouldn't he be running down the stairs backwords?

[@aleksandergrzybowski8899]

I also don't get it. It seems clear that Neil is in forward time, so was the bullet inverted? The gun was? Both? Did Neil know that will happen? Did he know he has to "release" the trigger, instead of pulling it? I buy the idea that the bullet magically appeared there (just like cracks in glass in airport scene) but not much more. I wanted to like this movie, I love hurting my brain by this type of analysis, but this one is hurting me in a bad way, there are simply no logical answers in dozens of places. Kudos for trying to explain it, though, have an upvote. :)

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Neil is not inverted. His weapon is. Just like when Protagonist is in the science lab and is testing using an inverted gun.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@aleksandergrzybowski8899 Neil apparently is not new to inversion at this point. He knows how to use inverted weapons. He wasn't inverted here. But his weapon was, like in the science lab.

[@1gorSouz4]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill I've thought about this and i don't see a point in using inverted guns and bullets. How are they better than normal ones?

[@aleksandergrzybowski8899]

Ok cool, makes sense, thanks for your comment. What doesn't is why did he use inverted gun, do Tenet operatives have both types of guns at all times with them? How did he know that he has to pull up and use the inverted one this time, even though he could have shot the terrorist with a normal one just fine, right in his head while standing behind and not being noticed? I know, cool visual, yeah, I loved it... before I thought about it :P

[@eraserrx]

3:36 Then how can Neil moves forward? So, is he normal (not inverted) shooting a inverted gun/bullet?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Yes,..that is exactly what is happening. He is not inverted, but using an inverted gun/bullet.

[@hexagonproductions2019]

1:08, if a Non-Mortal wound always travels in the direction of its cause, why did Kat have to recover from her inverted bullet wound after she was shot from her perspective?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Good question. I believe because is was not a non-mortal wound. It was Mortal to Kat due to the inverse radiation of opposing entropies. She was going to die. Ives says as much in the film. But they inverted her to make it a non-mortal wound. At that point her entropy matched the bullet's and it evens out as if it was just an ordinary bullet, which she could recover from. It is not so much that a wound is mortal or not insomuch as what it would do to Causality. Tenet doesn't allow for paradoxes. Kat could not have been dead before she is alive from her perspective. If a non-mortal wound would break causality it wouldn't happen either.

[@Peter_Holder]

Great work once again, solid visual demos. It's amazing how much there is to unpick from a two hour movie!

[@SuperCityscan]

Tbh, it would make more sense if in Oslo inverted TP gains the wound when TP stabs him, but from TP's perspective, he thought he stabbed him, but actually closed up a wound. It would mean every wound travels with the one who takes them. But we also wouldn't get that foreshadowing.

[@raviom]

These videos are great. Definitely for the advanced Tenet science geek. Can you please also do a video to explain the theory that Neil inverted back to movie events from distant future? In a container on an ice breaker breathing reverse air all that time ?

[@Ghosteriz]

Moral of this video: If you see someone running backward toward to you... run

[@KilitWithFire]

I gotta say tho, I love it's one point that Neil makes about the multiple worlds theory, and our conscience not knowing the difference between the realities, which blows your mind if you think about that

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

yeah,...we may be switching realities every second and just not realize it. lol. It comes down to knowledge. The Only reason we would even have to question Free Will is blocked by our ignorance of the Future. Even if everything is predetermined and set in stone, it really matters little since we never experience what 'would have happened' otherwise. :p

[@KilitWithFire]

Also , do you think his initial response to the scientist showing him and he says "instinct " but it's more like intent, the moment of commitment, such as "you have to have dropped it first" so the TP now has the intent of dropping it, so the the bullet complies , cause at the single moment of commitment it will and always happen , all other possibilities collapse and what's happened has happened, like the cell he gave kat to keep her safe , wasn't changing the past, it was setting the future up, cause of his intent and commitment to protect her and I'm assuming when handing her that cell he understood he was gonna make it out and some how it's like he knew his future self would get the message she will eventually leave for him , thus not changing the past but creating future events and or stopping before they happen, if they haven't happen yet then all possibilities remain

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@KilitWithFire i am a little torn between two views. I really like the idea of "intent" and collapsing the wave function of possibilities to a definitive event. But I am a Block universe fan boy, and want things to be set in stone, even before you have "intent". The universe already knows what happens, you just gotta roll through. But as Neil says, "its not an excuse to do nothing". And this is where I would ascribe "intent" mattering. If Neil wasn't the Tenet zealot that he was, and willing to die for his faith in the mechanics, we would never have seen him down there in the first place, and we would have a different movie.

[@KilitWithFire]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill on the contrary, the bullet scene where the scientist tells.TP "you had to have dropped it" then in that moment when he thinks about that (in the movie TP seems to be shown to have great intelligence) so he catches on faster then most people would, so now after the scientist told him he had to had dropped it, now that thought in his mind, and he knows he understood and is going to do it, there for that's intent with commitment, not instinct , bc it isn't instinct to know that, but I think he says instinct bc if you try to imagine how that would feel, I was assume something similar to a magnet feeling pushing or pulling, a force of time if you will , so the feeling will feel like instinct, but over the course of the movie I think the point of them repeating what's happened had happened, but that doesn't mean you can't change the future such as TP did by giving kat that phone with the intent to protect her, but the fact the kept stating multiple worlds theory, is kind of an indication there might be something there, in the beginning scene when he being tortured, watch those trains, I can't yet explain it, but there is something ...off about them, first there are 4 sets of tracks , but notice which trains you are seeing in one sec then it looks back and it's a different train and that's seems to repeat, almost as if we are seeeing these multiple realities all coalescing centurions will collapse into the main timeline, so the saying would make sense, what's happened has happen and nothing can change that, and TPs response is very important I think as he says "what if we do it different" , so the point where he gives Kat that phone ,potentially saving her from the Hit man bc of a future call she makes he plays it to Pria, my question is is that phone from the future? Is it inverted? How do you think he was able to get the call to save her ? And Prias confusion on how he even knew like something had changed , I could be wrong, but those things caught my attention while watching some clips, and one more thing, cause and effect in the begging when TP asks about free will, she says the bullet wouldn't have never moved if you didn't put your hand there, meaning if he didn't intend to drop/pick up Said bullet , if a person had no knowledge of inversion would it still work for them?

[@KilitWithFire]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill and I think neil died because he knew it would be the only way they would succeed in the mission bc it already happened from Ives and TPs experience, but neil seems slightly sad about it but confident cause he knows they win and he is okay with dying to save the world, and "Intent"doesnt seem like the right word , it's more of thought and commitment

[@Timkast]

This literally proves the point I’ve been trying to make for three years on r/tenet: The movie’s bullet logic is untenable.

[@francescorobustelli4775]

I'd say that if we are to build a comprehensive theory, any life-threatening or extremely serious injury will flow in the same direction as the victim. It would be weird to, say, see my leg detach from my body at 14 and then heal at 15 after the inverted person uncuts it with an axe... Especially because otherwise I would be long dead before receiving the actual injury. Still, there are a number of borderline cases. What qualifies a wound as "serious"? Even a knife strike like the one received by the Protagonist could be fatal if it has pierced an artery and remains untreated for too long. Of course there may be the movie solution of "what's happened, happened". But it still does not solve the paradigm of the person outright ignoring the wound until it will be undone. So, in the end, a nice logic for a sci-fi movie, but impossible to keep with the actual one.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

I talked about this in other comments. Its really not about your body. Its about the effect it would have on Causality. Also, as mentioned, the time it takes for things to manifest is wildly inconsistent. If you got your leg chopped off it could form one second before it unchops. We just don't know.

[@francescorobustelli4775]

It is also possible that, in the logic of "what's happened, happened", the only wounds that are actually inflicted are the ones that will not be treated before being "undone". I don't mean to say that the Universe knows when a person will tend to an inverted injury appearing on their body and when they won't, but it may be possible that, since we see that in Tenet, as in basically any other time travel movie, the flow of time eventually settles on a coherent loop, the only inverted injuries which will survive and end up into said loop are those which can be consistent with causality: for instance, the ones appearing moments before their un-infliction, the ones the victim has no possibility of treating before their un-doing, and so on. If, say, the inverted Protagonist had had his leg chopped off by his self at Freeport, he would surely have either died or abandoned his mission, thus starting a new chain of events that, eventually, would probably have evolved into a new, more coherent loop.

[@GamezGuru1]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill the idea that the consequences depend on the severity or mortality of the wound just shows that these are inconsistencies in the movie, i.e. errors. I don't understand why Nolan didn't just stick with the simpler (and 100% consistent) rule of a wound occuring in the victims timeline, whether it is mortal or not. Only Kat's wound behaves in this way. TP should bleed from his stab wound AFTER he's stabbed from his perspective. It's like Nolan just wanted to make things even weirder than necessary, and actually just makes the mechanics inconsistent...

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@GamezGuru1 It is not so much the physical severity of a wound, but what it means to causality. I get you though. the movie is a puzzle and the 'hope' is there is some structure in there somewhere. I do plan to revisit this topic again in a new video eventually.

[@GamezGuru1]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill Don't you agree this would be simpler and 100% consistent: Forward acts on forward - cause before effect Inverted acts on inverted - cause before effect Forward acts on inverted - effect before cause Inverted acts on forward - effect before cause This would avoid any questions about when did the bullet holes in the glass or opera chair appear. Or why does TP bleed before being stabbed. Or why didn't Kat get healed by the gunshot.

[@error_1205]

In my opinion it would be logical, if humans behave exactly like objects. That would also mean, that a living human could be dead in his own past. First for comparison: As the chair in the opera gets shot by an inverted gun, the effects (= hole in the concrete) travel back in time even though the object (= chair) isn't inverted. After some time the "entropic wind" takes over filling the hole in the concrete again. Watched from the "normal" time perspective the cair is intact → starts to form a hole → the bullet gets "sucked out" and the hole is filled immediately → chair is intact again. Transfered to a human (is basically also an object): "Normal" human gets shot by inverted gun Perspective of the gun: Living human (= intact chair) gets shot → dead (= hole in the chair) → "entropic wind" takes over → human lives again (= hole in chair gets filled) Perspective of human: Lives → hole randomly appears in his head → dead → gun "sucks" bullet out of his head → hole in head filled → human lives again The same thing would probably happen if the gun was "normal" and the human inverted. (If there is such a thing as "entropic wind" in the inverted direction inside of a inverted body) I think that would be the most locigal behavior of killing inverted people. But I understand that this would be difficult to implement in the movie, because there would be no absolute deaths if a inverted person kills a normal person (or the other way around) Please tell me if I'm wrong and had an error in my thoughts :)

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

I get what you are saying and maybe they kept this rule simply to avoid removing any consequeses where nobody can really die. It may make for a boring movie, heh. " (If there is such a thing as "entropic wind" in the inverted direction" I do believe there is a difference depending what state you and the object are in. There is a definite 'direction of entropy' on the normal side. This is what would be pushing against inverted forces. There is no such opposing 'wind' while normal. As normal causes would be in line with the dominant flow of time. This is the exact thing that the Future bad guys want to reverse. The fear is that the Algorithm can be used to flip the domant flow of time and now Our past is the one fighitng the new reversed flow and will be erased.

[@stormburn1]

I think another way this could work is if "mortal" wounds are characterized by whether the victim can reach a turnstile before being overtaken by entropy. Essentially, the injury is an entanglement that requires either inversion or entropic wind to heal sufficiently in both a conventional and inverted form. * If a conventional person receives an inverted injury, inversion would then make the injury conventional. * If an inverted person receives a conventional injury, inversion makes the injury inverted. If the victim is able to invert after being injured from their perspective, they would be able to heal both the conventional and inverted forms of the injury. If they're not, then they either survive long enough for the entropic wind to remove the inverted effect or they die and are then overtaken by entropy before they could have reached a turnstile. As for how entropic winds determine when an inverted effect appears, a weird solution IMO would be akin to in the book To Say Nothing of the Dog. (SPOILERS in next comment).

[@stormburn1]

SPOILERS for To Say Nothing of the Dog . . . . . . . Basically, time itself, by its nature, effectively/actively seeks to resolve temporal damage in the way your body does, but the level of complexity of time and its healing process needed to resolve these issues is immense and leads to a kind of emergent consciousness where minor causes lead to massive effects. I think of this like how the "minor" cause of looking at ink on paper can motivate a consciousness to create a massive effect. So to heal large effects, the mechanics of healing time leads to minor causes which can then undo those massive effects, creating a time loop. Basically, you need a time loop to resolve a paradox created by an effect, and the way to create that loop is to impact some conscious cause before the effect to minimize the scope of the ripple caused by the effect so it can be absorbed by unconscious matter. It's like an interference pattern. Consciousness in this case being something that can either magnify a cause and unconsciousness being something that can minimize an effect. When the effect is sufficiently minimized, all that's left is the leftover heat of entropy. To try to visualize this, imagine time as one big string where time travel or inversion causes it to vibrate. Consciousness would then be some entity or phenomenon which can pinch the string, containing the vibration, and unconsciousness being instead some large length or mass of string which can absorb or dampen the vibration until it's undetectable. Because consciousness magnifies a cause, it cannot be around to observe the dampening effect of unconsciousness or else it would be undone. If it observes the dampening, the observation needs to either not lead to a cause or the subsequent cause needs to be mitigated.

[@stormburn1]

I have no idea if what I wrote makes sense, but it feels like it almost might.

[@octowuss1888]

Very good. Can you do one on light? How do inverted people see when the light should be travelling away from their eyes and cannot get to their retinas? It's like normal air molecules not being able to pass through inverted lungs.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

that's going deep! lol. I'll save that one for a Miscellaneous Tenet Ideas video,...heh.

[@Phoenix_of_Sun]

Would light work like that though since light is moving at light speed and not affected by time? I think that whether you were moving forward or inverted, the light around you would remain constant.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@Phoenix_of_Sun From our normal point of view, if you saw an inverted person walking around backwards, the light is still hitting them like anything else. And you are moving backwards , which is why the wind feels like it is at your back. From the inverted person's pov, the light is traveling the opposite direction, but that info is still there, just pinging the eyes and ears in reverse. In the film, Wheeler says you will be disoriented but will get used to it.

[@francescorobustelli4775]

It's the biggest plot hole of the movie. If oxygen doesn't work backwards l, then any physical reaction shouldn't, rendering your life impossible. Another example beyond light? You'd freeze to death in no time flat due to sunrays moving in the opposite direction and, thus, taking heat away. They would have much better find a sci-fi solution like "the turnstile modifies your cells to allow you to live backwards", rather than doing that oxygen thing which only served the purpose of putting masks on inverted people to distinguish them.

[@han-gyoulim6786]

Just amazing. Please keep going.

[@protus3882]

1:37 that must’ve been the best feeling of relief ever

[@blurryimage4585]

If you die while inverted, it seemes your dead body must have been there since the beginning - it must have begun de-decomposing at a certain point, seemingly gaining denentropy / necessary information out of nothing, just to fully form at the right time to be unkilled. Which begs the question, if Sator`s mob had been in the pit before, was the body already there? Would they be able to infer some later implications? Was the corpse or its remnants there at the point when young Sator discovered the first box? What if he decided not to follow this path, so the communication between future and present would have never been established, meaning the inverted body couldn`t have ever existed in the first place? Or is it that inverted events only flow into the past until a certain point, until the dominating flow of entropy overpowers it? But then, if inverting means switching particles for antiparticles, how do they spontaneously "unswitch"? There`s also a ton of creative license taken in the movie in regards to annihilation. It`s elementar particles that annihilate with each other, they have no way of knowing what object they are part of. So if you consisted of antimatter, you`d annihilate in contact with ANY material object including air, it doesn`t have to be your own material body. Special protective gear would have to be VERY special in order to prevent this, again, Tenet already uses fictional physics, so I`ll suppress disbelief.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Yes, it appears that your body would just decompose like normal into the past, meaning, you would start unDecomposing in normal time. Perhaps his bones fell through the floor grate into the pit, meaning, in forward time, it would leap up onto the platform. or maybe Tenet team actually went in and got his body. " What if he decided not to follow this path" - if Sator decided not to follow this path then Neil wouldn't have died so there would not even be a body there in the first place. "But then, if inverting means switching particles for antiparticles, how do they spontaneously "unswitch"?" I do not believe anything is 'unswitching'. It simply gets overwritten. washed from existence into the past, which means in forward view, it seems to manifest. This is partly the fear they hold if the bad guys succeed inverting the entropy of the world. I also don't believe inverted Objects disappear. They are more robust. But normal objects that are affected by inverted forces may be subject to the dominating flow. I have other videos exploring this topic. "There`s also a ton of creative license taken in the movie in regards to annihilation" Yes, I feel the same way. And would have preferred they not even mention it. And just sort of explain why they wear the suits in terms of a precaution due to emitting trace amounts of inverted radiation since you went through a turnstile.

[@rafaelduarte3922]

Please. Where is the number 4?? 😞

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

i got something cooking. it's been a rough few months for me though. so busy , irl. I'll get to it. ;p

[@eastmeetswestpresents6923]

My previous comment about Neil's and Kat's bullet shots got deleted so lemme try again to explain my theory about how they worked in relation to this principle and the principle of "the winds of time" (constantly swimming upstream) Kat was shot with an inverted bullet but Kat is not inverted. When the bullet penetrated her as it tried to return to Sator's gun, it was stopped dead in its tracks by Kat's forward entropy - hence why the bullet remained inside her and leaking radiation (to compensate). If you saw Sator's perspective when he inverted himself, he fired the gun but Kat was healed. The inverse is true with Neil. He was inverted but Volkov and his bullet weren't. When Neil jumped between TP and Volkov, the bullet actually followed through with its trajectory - meaning it entered and exited Neil's head rather than the bullet and/or the wound suddenly reforming in his head. Which is why to the surprise of TP and Volkov, the latter's shot actually healed the inverted Neil.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

I dont know why it could have been deleted, I certainly didn't do it. I get what you are saying, I wish it was clearer in the film if the bullet past through Neil. It makes things simpler. As for Kat, the bullet did not end up stuck inside her. It is clearly stuck in the wall. And since inverted Sator fires it, it begins from his gun. I think just the act of an inverted object passing through your body is enough to apply the radiation poisoning.

[@gornakovanton]

Is it posible, if regular person from one line and invertion person from another line jump in one turniket?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

technically it is not possible. The inverted person is not jumping into a turnstile, they are leaving it backwards. If you , as a normal person tried to jump into the blue side then nothing would happen, you would not invert. So there would not be an inverted you to unjump from it in the first place. The situation would never arise. You can stand outside the turnstile forever and you'd never see your inverted self.

[@sbraypaynt]

You may be all wrapped up on Tenet content but on the minuscule chance you see this comment I’d love to hear your thoughts on the AT4 soldier at the start of the Stalsk-12 battle. The one that is taken out by Ives team after they take cover. In this case that soldier fires an inverted AT4 causing us to assume that the soldier is also inverted, however in this case that soldier is dead in their own past. Because from their perspective they are dead, are unexploded and then get up and fire a rocket at Ives’ team. The only way it doesn’t violate causality is if that soldier was non inverted but their weapon was.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

At the briefing , Ives explains that indeed, there may be all kinds of mixed situations, so a normal soldier with an inverted rocket is not out of the question. That would solve this scenerio. But if the soldier was also inverted it could play out like this: He can't be dead before he is alive so it could be that he enters the building, and sees the window and room have been blown apart. This may give him pause and he would hold back until after the room is unexploded, something he'd expect if he was trained in inverted warfare, afterwards at which point he goes ahead and fires his rocket. That delay he makes while waiting could be the window of opportunity given to Ives and Tenet to run past safely. But he would not have done that if Ives didn't already blow up the room.

[@somerandomgal3915]

I watch this vid months later for a brainteaser again and I start to wonder if it is really lethality or not or rather just a case of the wound itself being inverted relative to the target or not. I mean an inverted hole in a wall doesn’t suddenly make the whole wall inverted. And comparing a wall to living beings and living cells doesn’t really make sense either. It’s own inner processes are after all entangled with that of the neighbouring cells and the rest of the body And make That Part of a local dominant flow there. Asking why a wound being mortal or not would affect how it behaves is kind of like asking why a Jenga tower falls more likely if you pick out the lower blocks first before the upper ones. The overall balance of the local system changes accoridingly. The Oslo knife and the inverted opera bullet on the protagonist only scratch on edges of the overall local dominant flow system that is his body and the wound *can* therefore be restored by the dominant flow of time in the local past. An inverted bullet going *through* that entangled living system with cat and Neil on the other hand… this wound *can not* be restored back through the local dominant wind that is their bodies since it affects their whole system, hence the effect of the wound itself has to go *with* the local dominant flow. Non living systems like walls and concrete aren’t internally as strongly entangled as living systems usually, hence an inverted bullet shooting a hole in a wall can causally be repaired in it as well through the dominant flow of time. TLDR: I think it is not the lethality of the wound that decides wether or not it goes with or against the dominant flow of the body, it is wether or not the dominant flow of the living and selfentangled system that is the body is strong enough to redirect the flow of the effect. And additionally to that thought: yeah that would mean that shooting through the knee of an inverted person would turn into an effect into their own future, rather than keep on flowing into their own past if it is otherwise severe enough to affect the whole entangled system. And wall being self entangled internally strong enough with similar processes as they happen inside a body (living or not) would also act similarly. I might just be very bored and was trying to solve and explain away an honest mistake that happened during the development of the plot of tenet. But what would a brainteaser be without a seemingly unsolvable paradox to clear up there?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Always up for more thoughts on the matter. It is all good fun. I think I worded things here in such a way as to make viewers sometimes get hung up on lethal and non-lethal being the root cause. Try not to think of the severity of the wound( lethal or not) but what it would actually do to causality. If it can be solved in such a way as to not break causality, like simple wounds being able to heal/unheal, then it will allow it. but if it would break it, such as being dead before being alive, and therefore render anything you did in your past impossible, then it won't., since paradoxes are not allowed. You mention of a local dominant flow vs. Whole systems is very interesting too. And I have read other theories about that in the case of the problematic bullet in Neil's head. Basically, once that normal bullet embeds in Neil's head, assuming it didn't pass though like Kat's, it is overtaken by Neil's inverted entropy and the bullet itself flips to be inverted also. Almost like his head acts as a mini turnstile. The bullet is in two places , Volkov's gun and an inverted version in Neil's body on the ground.

[@somerandomgal3915]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill thanks for replying there first off and I also agree with the bullet in the head part, I had something like that in mind as well while I was writing my comment there. I would like to add one more thought that just came up to me while reading your reply there concerning the dominant overall flow of time: the algorithm is supposed to be able to flip this exact thing around at some point in the future, however if that would affect the actual past, this would break causality. Unless it is the dominant flow of the extended future timeline that gets flipped around and not that of the “already happened” actual past. Which would then beg the question where things would’ve or could’ve gone if activating the algorithm at some point in time in the future proved to be successful and as a result every point moving „forward“ in that global time Block could only do so against the dominant flow of its time there?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@somerandomgal3915 This is a Huge question. And even the Protagonist questions the nature of the Future's Evil plan to invert the world. He asks almost the same thing in the film to Neil. "If the Algorithm destroys the past, doesn't us being here right now mean that it never happens? " If we are to adhere to "what's happened happened" then it is already evident that the bad guys failed. But Neil also says "It's not an excuse to do nothing." So just as we can assume the future bad guys failed. We must assume that We did Do something to prevent it. And that should encourage the team to press on. It is ultimately unclear the extent of what 'Inverting the World' means in the film as well. Does it invert the Land? but not people? Or all of it? How can it do this? Once the planet is inverted won't it collide with it's forward self and just annihilate, assuming the inverted one is the one that gets annihilated? I think Nolan was purposefully vague and didn't wanna get too bogged down. It's just a vibe that it's something terrible that the good guys want to stop.

[@johnyk6750]

Now, what happened to Neil's dead inverted body? Based on what we've seen in previous video, the effect of inverted event (dealt on non-inverted object) will appear moments before it is caused (like the wall in Oslo), would that mean that Neil's body was suddenly created on spot few minutes before? And if so, this would mean that from his perspective he just vanished to nothingness. Why it isn't the same for inverted guns and people?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

the previous video covers the Effects on 'normal' things caused by inverted Objects. those things were not originally inverted and thus the 'wind' seems to correct them in to the past. Neil's body and stuff like the Gold are purposefully inverted. I consider them as inverted objects and will explore them in the next video. Personally I do not think these objects react to wind the same way,..if at all. Otherwsie Sator's Gold would never last long enough to reach him.

[@Digildon]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill If only people with normal time interacted with Neal's body, how he got here to undead. Did people bring it here on purpose? With what motivation? If in the past people would have seen a body, they would have wanted to bury it, but apparently since the body is inverted, they decided to keep it so that it would then go to a place where it would die. It did not lie until the end of time, there was no body when this building was built.

[@johnyk6750]

@@Digildon But inverted objects are indistinguishable from normal ones. Look for example at the bullets presented to protagonist in lab (he was asked if he could tell the difference between them - as we've seen, he could not) or soldiers in Stalsk 12 (they had to wear red and blue armlets in order to tell who is inverted and who is not)

[@jacklauder8226]

That instrumental is awesome. ✌️

[@raelsidoroff1239]

Butterfly effect Travis Scott

[@simplegarak]

I will say the biggest headache I've had with this film is the interaction of inverted people with non-inverted objects (or vice versa). Still love it though, and enjoying these vids.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

yes, the car chase is very difficult to follow when half of them are normal and the other inverted interacting in real time,..heh.

[@StefanTetelepta]

Thank You. I was waiting for a new video I have to watch this multiple times because cant get my head around the fact that an inversed bullit for a forward person comes out of nowhere. Take the wall in the science lab. the Wall and the gun where reversed but did they collect the concrete to fill the reversed hole?

[@leachy114]

I simply think the bullet fractured and tore apart his brain OR the bullet bounced around in his helmet. It's clear he dies, bullets don't typically stay their shape when entering a target, they fracture doing more damage. We can see the inside of his gas mask is bloody, so the bullet didn't enter cleanly like a .22 would. It was extremely close range too, making the case for this even more likely.

[@Moley1Moleo]

I'm not certain that non-mortal wounds always travel in the direction of the cause. In the freeport fight scene, certainly the 'inverted man' has a 'red' wound from the knife, as you note. However, what about the very minor wounds (like bruising or concussion) that inverted man and TP might get from the fight? It is hard to tell, as we don't get a clear inventory of the wounds of each of them, however: In the hallway, inverted man doesn't seem to be harmed by TP trying to beat him, as he easily deflects the punches, as from his perspective TP places his hands gently on the inverted man, and then quickly moves his arms away. If the red cause (TP) dominated, then I think the punches should hit harder. However it seems you'd do well to try inverted punches, where you focus on pulling your fist away from their body fast. I feel as if non-mortal wounds can work either way. Much like mixed caused and effect can work either way. e.g. you can un-drop an inverted bullet by working with its inversion, but if you picked it up normally and threw it normally, then from the bullet's point of view it would have felt unnatural forces full it up off the ground and into your hand. Much like in the Freeport fight scene where they throw each other around, and hence also float up off the floor.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

I don't have any issue with this as it doesn't break any causality in any important way. But the fact that TP's punches would feel soft doesn't play into the direction effects travel. That is just the nature of a physical object starting slow and pulling away. Who knows, TP may 'feel' a soft pressure on his arm just before inverted TP punched(unpunhced) him. But if, like you mention, if you purposefully tried punching invertedly, the damage you Do bause should still be in line with your entropy and manifest inverted to the target, imho. You are right though, it's hard to tell in the film as they don't really show those examples.

[@lowkeyobsessedngl]

so if neil dies going backward in time... does his body just... disappear as the winds of entropy fixes it?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

I lean towards no. He doesn't disappear. He is inverted. Just like the gold from the future, it doesn't seem to fade away. Only the "effects" by an inverted Object on normal objects seem to do that. So his body would decay as any body would and possibly fall through the grate into the hole. Or Tenet inverted and retrieved the body at some point.

[@ameennasar2583]

I have a theory of my own.Inverted Neil did not had to run towards the closed gate where the protagonist and Ives is struck(because he is inverted and thus travelling backwards,surely they must be safe). He did so because of the unhealing gun shot in his head.Yes,this is possible.So inverted neil becomes paranoid because of the bullet in his head.So he might have forgotten all about the time flow and only concentrated on saving them by opening the door. He opened the door and stood there without leaving it close(because the door would get locked if closed). So,when the reverse protagonist and Ives(in neil's perspective)get out of the it, Neil closed it.That's when he was un-shot(thereby the protagonist being saved too)and died because of inverted bullet radiation. Is this theory convincing?I do believe that inverted neil did those things because he was paranoid because of the bullet in his head un-healing.

[@nathansvn717]

Its difficult to get behind this logic because we are mortal beings who feel pain so if we get injury inside our brain / head, then we should be losing consciousness at the minimum if not dying instantly. And its shown in the film, that wound starts to take shape way before the actual impact. By your reasoning, the wound healing in reverse inside Neil's, should have made him paralyzed mentally and physically way before the actual impact.

[@ameennasar2583]

@@nathansvn717 I think coffeespill is correct,that non-mortal wounds just don't face the impact of un-healing.The effect of the bullet when shot to Neil's head did not made blood in his head.But the un-shoting did.

[@uma_r]

Mr. Welby are you Chris Nolan in disguise?

[@harrypotterjkw]

I am wondering if this movie goes against the principle of Law of conservation of Mass and Energy ? I mean at a given time there are more than one versions (forward or reverse entropy) of some characters present.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

They probably took the idea of virtual particles that spawn as pairs, particle and anti-particle , and then annihilate if they touch. But I think they are pretty loose about that kind of stuff being Sci-Fi.

[@Posby95]

I don't think the movie violates the conservation of mass. The character is just moved in time. His timeline is bent. If the character would live 80 years and he spent 1 year inverted and 1 year reverted, he would die 78 years after his birth. His lifetime is taken from the future and overlayed with the past.

[@nerahm249]

Actually, in that opening scene I don't understand why neil didnt use a regular gun to save TP. Neil himself doesn't appear to be going backwards, so I feel like it's a shoehorned demonstration.

[@isaacantonius9308]

Agreed, it wouldn't be an issue had he been inverted, since in that case he just shoots the guy from his perspective, but being normal, he basically pulled the trigger hoping there was an inverted bullet embedded somewhere in the chair, that would jump back into the gun, which there was, but still

[@g80gzt]

The intensity of the Red, dominant entropy, forces the Blue cause of a mortal wound of a Red entropy subject, to be swept up in the stream going forwards?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

There are a few angles you can approach the situation. In this video I touch on causality. I think we can agree that you cannot be 'dead' before you are alive from your point of view. That would break causality. As in, how did you even get into the situation where you were shot if you are dead already. But digging deeper, I do believe there IS a difference in behavior depending on whether you are aligned with time( normal) or moving against it (inverted). I have some theories on more specific explanations and one day I may make a video.

[@leonardofernandes1328]

There is a problem when a wound separates a part of the body. In the airport scene: What if normal TP had take off a limb of inverted TP with an axe in a non-mortal wound, and his limb stood on floor? After Kat was shot and he went to the inversion machine his limb would magically disappear, appear on the floor where the fight occurred and later be reattached in the fight?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

ha,..yes, I have heard this example asked before. Nolan just didn't choose to go there. In the film , it took some time for the bullet wound to appear before it was healed. But in other cases, that timing is seen differently, even instantaneous. Perhaps his arm doesn't fall off until a minute or even second before it is is unchopped back. Any longer and it may bleed out and die, which is a no no as it causes a paradox.

[@heavydee007]

Wait!!! How do you deal with inverted poops? 😅🤣😅🤣

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Those videos are only accessible on my OnlyFans Tenet page. ;p j/k !!

[@heavydee007]

Will be glad to check it out. The link please

[@JohnHorneGuitar]

I thought I understood Tenet until I watched these videos. Now I'm more confused!

[@tianxiangxiong8223]

This doesn't make any sense. In the example at 1:11 Red shoots Blue and the wound behaves as expected from Red's perspective. But from Blue's perspective a wound appears out of nowhere, slowly worsens, Red unshoots him, & finally the wound suddenly disappears. But how long does it take for the wound to heal (unheal)? What if Blue had just stepped out of a time inverter? Would his immediate past on the Red side have stepped in to the machine wounded? He should, b/c it's established that no time passes between stepping into the inverter & coming out the other side. But if he stepped in wounded as a Red, when did he get shot? There's a problem of timeline asymmetry here. It'd make more sense if Red (forward-time) & Blue (backward time) are symmetric, i.e. the wound should behave as expected from Blue's perspective instead of Red's. Then in the above example this would mean, from Red's perspective, Blue is healed, then a wound opens up, then Red unshoots him, then he's fine. One implication is that you can't kill or wound someone in opposite time. You can only unkill or unwound them b/c their future is in your past. This is what we see w/ Neil at the end.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

" But how long does it take for the wound to heal (unheal)?" I say this many times in these videos that the 'timing' of things seems pretty random. I haven't noticed a solid pattern. " i.e. the wound should behave as expected from Blue's perspective instead of Red's. " The reason for this is the cause is tied to the dominant entropy i this case. The effect travels in the direction of its cause. The timing , based on the film, can be minutes, hours, or even instantaneous it would seem. "one implication is that you can't kill or wound someone in opposite time." You may wound for a time, just like the Oslo fight stab, You can kill someone inverted, we see that plainly when Neil died. It just happens in 'his' future, not yours, as you are observing them moving backwards into their past...i.e. before they died. But yes, from a strictly forward observation you cannot have an inverted person dead 'after' you shoot them. They would already be dead, from your point of view, then rise up and unDie.

[@johncra8982]

Wait. So the fatal bullet that killed Neil, there was a corpse in the cage with that bullet jammed in its head, but Volkov also had the same bullet loaded in his gun? How does an inverted person getting shot with an uninverted round work?

[@colinbarlow6662]

I'm just as clueless as you here but I'm assuming it work the say way an inverted bullet on an uninverted person (like when inverted Sator shoots uninverted Kat)

[@johncra8982]

@@colinbarlow6662 It's not the same. Winds of entropy don't flow in both directions.

[@colinbarlow6662]

@@johncra8982 yeah like I said I'm clueless lol

[@KilitWithFire]

The forward bullet will always move forward, no matter if your shooting an inverted or non inverted person

[@badarwildani]

Maybe in the next video we can explore the "End of the world" concept that Neil was talking about. There's still a lot to talk about such as Sator's message from the future, what is the purpose of the bomb and why Sator's son will be doomed if the bomb explodes. subscribed 👍

[@skibidibop3028]

From how I see it, it would make the most sense if *all* wounds, lethal or non-lethal, serious or trivial, flows in the victim’s future. Take the Protagonist stabbing himself in Oslo. The knife is normal, but inverted TP, specifically his _body,_ is inverted. From inverted TP’s perspective, he wasn’t stabbed until his fight with his past self brought him to the turnstile room. Take the human body and the “cascade of healing” it undertakes to heal itself from injuries, now imagine a wound propagating into that body’s past. The inverted cells, inverted immune system, inverted etc. should all be working to heal this inexplicable wound. The bullet or knife may be inverted relative to the wounded area, but that area consisting of the damaged tissues and the organic processes trying to fix the damage it just suffered are all moving in the opposite direction. To reiterate my point, if an inanimate object or living being is harmed by something inverted relative to itself, it would be the most consistent if the damage and aftermath always moved in the victim’s forward temporal direction. For example, the inverted TP’s knife wound should have not have appeared until the moment he was stabbed and that wound would follow him into the turnstile as he uninverted (the normal, past TP would see the inverted TP emerge from the turnstile with an injured arm and his knife attack would inexplicably “heal” his assailant’s arm). Likewise, the damage to the glass partition in the turnstile room should not have appeared until it was struck in its future by the inverted bullets (the inverted TP would enter the room seeing the glass already damaged and then his gunshots would “fix” the glass). This would be, in my opinion, the most consistent application of the rules.

[@sbraypaynt]

Maybe Nolan should‘ve explained why a bullet to TP’s shoulder isn’t a mortal would but a bullet to the shoulder of this guy 3:07 Is a mortal would.

[@westmcgee9320]

I think it more likely that Volko’s bullet was inverted, like Neil. Thus, the death occurred in the expected order. The scenario presented by the video is probably never shown just like we never see anyone change time. We don’t know that it can’t be done but we never seen it done a single...time. And yet, the main threat of the movie is that time can be changed, by those in the far future. And the far future has no reason to fail to test to see the condition in which they could turn back time. So, one presumes that they’ve done so. But that’s all we can do. And Nolan, having found the boundaries of his fictional reality, conveniently tiptoes around them, like a Superman creative team tiptoes around issues The Punisher deals with regularly. It’s inconvenient to the tone and plot of the fictional work.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

believe me, I wish it was inverted. It would make this all so much easier, lol. But I didn't see any indication that it was, it Sounds the same as a regular gun, and he uses it to clip and knock out Ives. I totally agree that Nolan tiptoes around circumstances. I purposefully try to keep things within just what we see or hear in the film because I know it's so easy to start making sci fi mumbo jumbo up. I didn't feel comfortable doing that, or at least keep it to a minimum or call it out.

[@compad6951]

My somewhat crazy idea with the bullet that hit Neil is that the bullet also follows Neil backwards in time. like the fact that when you enter the turnstile to forward following people you vanish, the bullet follows the one it killed back in time. When Neil was shot in the head, the bullet follows Neil backwards in time with his limping body, thus making it so that the bullet doesnt just apparate with Neil as he goes and blocks the bullet

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

I thought about that too early on. I like the idea. But that would mean the bullet suddenly inverted after entering his head so that it can be in there when he is dead on the floor. Like a mini turnstile in his head. Some people said maybe since it was enclosed by an inverted object( his head) that it pushed its inverted energy to the bullet. It's a bit fussy though. And not what the script describes, though the script does differ from the film in other parts. But really who knows, lol.

[@compad6951]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill yeah, if we suppose that the turnstile effect can be given to objects already turned by the turnstile, like a field of radiation of sorts around the person, its plausible. But, considering nothing of the sort is explained, yeah, we'll never know. One thing to remember though is that if the bullet is stuck to Neil but still moves forwards while Neil moves back the bullet doesnt follow Neil back in time, so it just falls onto the floor right when the bullet hits. But yeah, still up in the air there, you are right in that there are inconsistencies here

[@compad6951]

Honestly, thinking about it again, the winds of time must the differing factor. The bullet must apparate from Neil's head because while the bullet is still going forwards and Neil moving back, the bullet would still be carried by alive neil. The real "blue tack" of the movie is the winds of entropy, just like how someone dead doesnt last, the bullet wouldnt last either

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@compad6951 I funny way to compare it is the Car chase. Where an inverted Saab car( Neil's head) can "carry" a normal Algorithm (bullet) all the way back to where it was parked. :)

[@compad6951]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill thats what makes it so interesting, if the algorithm would break the car but the car should still be moving backwords, would it act differently? Regardless of all that though, its the reason why clearly im not the screenwriter here. I've only just knew of the movie but a couple days ago but im in deep. Your explanations helped immensely in my enjoyment of the films. Thanks a lot, genuinely

[@EricTheYounger]

Honestly, what Nolan should have done is just pick a consistent rule and ran with it. For example, wounds always travel the same entropic direction as the victim/target. Therefore, TP's stab wound wouldn't "unheal", the sideview mirror on the car wouldn't "unbreak" etc. This wouldn't have changed the overall course of the film, e.g. Kat would still have gotten shot and the wound would travel in forward time, Neil would still die in the end, etc. The problem is Nolan wanted to be all artsy and have these cool shots like damage "unhealing", but this broke the internal consistency of the film at the micro-level (not the high-level story).

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I am now very much wondering how this affects other forms of life like animals and plants!

[@IronVigilance]

So what would happen if you jump out of a window while inverted? Will the glass become inverted and flow backwards with you, even though the glass didn't go inside of a turnstile?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Yes and no. The Glass is never inverted. Since, as you mention, it never went through a turnstile. But it IS reacting to inverted forces on it. Which would make it appear to behave inverted to us. Since those forces are approaching the glass from the future, from its perspective, we observe the glass already broken on the ground, then get pushed up and all back into position as the inverted person unLeaps through it.

[@hollywoodalvarez26]

With this video you can understand the movi because what it does hard to understand is the entropy... And its hard to understand because we percibe different (inverted). The rest of the movie only is times travel (without times travel) but as you see they are inverted traveling to the past... So yes, indirectly they travel to the past. Just not how we see always because the entropy. If you understand that and how it works, you will understand the movie. Remember one thing: "Everything is inverted". When i say everythig, is everything... Everething as you know is inverted... Inverted as you know is everything (the key).

[@hollywoodalvarez26]

After re watching this... I see the video a good work but i see a mistake in the way you percibe the impact of damage. The inverted man is always doing the same but in another way because he's go from the future to the past (3, 2, 1). The things that inverted man do is the same thing that he would not inverted but in the execute to the things we percibe it inverted (that's like an ilusion)... Because you can't count 3, 2, 1 if you is inverted. Why? Because from the inverted time perspective you start to count from the future and not from the past. So you should to count 1, 2, 3 but inverted like you inverted that in a mirror 1, 2, 3 but reading it from the end to start (from the future to past). That's why we percibe the inverted man as an inverted man plus a man travling from the future to the past. So you have 3, 2, 1 (inverted man) but you can't start to count from 3 because an inverted man start in the future/end of normal man (man inverted''s past) to the past/start of normal man (man inverted future). So you have 3, 2, 1 but is the same thing if you count 3, 2, 1 in a mirror: You'll start to count from 1 (3) to 2 (2) to 1 (3). So you have the same thing but different because the entropy

[@hollywoodalvarez26]

So not, the bullet can't start from Neil's face because he's wasn't shot from there. Its like a inverted man hitting himself with the bottom of a chair in his ancle XD That's imposible Why? Put yourself doing that but with an inverted entropy (normal man) and try to hitting yourself there lol

[@salisburymoseley]

Surely dead Neil's body wouldn't just materialise - wouldn't it be seemingly put there by reverse moving stretcher bearers..?

[@henrik1743]

Maybe a theory is that Neils test for tenet was to take the bullet for TP at the end?

[@sevenbeverly2568]

I don’t get it. Someone help me understand which way the bullet is traveling when Neil is killed?

[@MrGregnsk54]

mortal or normal wound can't have different rules. They operate on the same set of rules. Difference being only the effect. If death, then body decays into the target future, if not - body heals into the body future. (This is especially clear if you take a mortal wound which causes death in a week for example. Some of the tissue may start to heal, but that's not enough and a person dies)

[@Kpac_]

The real question is how does Neil pick a lock whilst going backwards in time. From his perspective, he ran to the door, closed it on TP and got shot

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

I've heard people mention the doorlocks are automatic and on springs. They need to be held open. But auto lock when closed. So if he was gonna pick it,.it would of been as he was entering the gated area, then held it open, let them reverse out, close it( autolock/unlock) , then get shot and die. from our normal perspective it would be: Neil dead Door auto-unlocks( we see that in the film) Neil rises, gets unshot Opens the door, holds it

[@farhaancynix3785]

We definitely need tenet 2

[@TomFromMars]

You mean a prequel then? ;D

[@prariedogg2529]

It's hinted that inverted objects go "back" for a long time. Wouldn't the people who built the hypocenter be weirded out by Neil's dead body being there while they're building it?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Yes, they certainly would be. So something else must have happened in order for that not to occur because his body IS there in the present. I made another video about inverted objects on the channel that explores things like that.

[@TaskforceJavelin]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill what if blue team took Neil's body and then they invert back in the turnstile to forward, would he recover from his head injuries (assuming he is still possibility alive = non-mortal wound) based on your explaination? If yes then there is a good chance Neil is still able to be alive.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@TaskforceJavelin that would not work. Inversion does not make things that already happened to you reverse. It just switches which way you are traveling in time around you. If they reverted Neil's body, he would still be dead. Except now his body is flowing forward through time instead of backwards into the past.

[@TaskforceJavelin]

@@WelbyCoffeeSpill that is true based on the mechanics u discussed on your channel. After watching your 3d simulations and some thoughts of the scenes. I think its like you said, if your are not morally wounded travelling in reverse time, your wound will first appear slowly and then at the point of wound impact from the straight bullet, it will just goes back to the straight gun. (Oslo Freeport scene when the TP1 stabbed reversed TP2). In the case of Neil, as he approaches the gate and holds it, his wounds should appear on his head first if it was non-lethal and then the bullet returns back to the shooter and he survives/run away etc. However if lethal, the wounds wouldn't appear first (your Death and Wounds #3 video at timestamp 2:02) before the impact happens, he actually dies and lay down. Based on the film, it should be lethal but because it was not shown whether his wounds appear before getting shot or he struggles with his head (due to the wound forming) while moving to the gate. He just drops to the ground and dies. However i think its safe to say it can be either way as he can technically just lie flat until the shooter leaves before he leaves. Fill free to correct me as i think this is a very interesting topic 😂

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

@@TaskforceJavelin I admit my wording may be slightly misleading. I would not think of it as mortal or not. The universe doesn't really 'know' that distinction. It is more about what it would do to 'causality'. It just so happens that mortal wounds 'would' make a difference as in : you cannot be Dead before you are alive from Your point of view. Doing so would break causality, which is a no no. There have been many great theories on the Tenet Reddit, which I suggest you visit, that get even more granular. For example, there are distinctions in the kinds of actions certain situations play out. Like the stab would in the airport. From inverted TP's perspective he is not stabbed when the knife/pick goes IN. He first encounter with the pick is when it is being pulled OUT( but in reverse, IN). And is 'healed' when the pick is thrust IN but in reverse( so it is Out for Inverted TP). Neil's situation has a lot of interpretations. If the bullet 'passed' through his head, it would make it much easier to grasp. But it is unclear. If the Origin of the bullet( from his perspective) is inside his head then there is no 'in and out'. Just an 'out'. I suppose it could be possible for Neil to just lay there, but I am not sure that is what they are implying. His facemask seemed like it was full of blood, it didn't look good for him ;p

[@tolgacakar7571]

I think we should not consider the effects as mortal or immortal, because that is not objective. We should consider it: when we are inverted, are we either shooting at someone who is already shot (so we will unshot that person through our inverted timeline) or someone unshot (so we will wound him through our timeline). It is sure that when we are inverted, we can not kill someone through our timeline because of entrophe, we can only wound him. However we can kill someone inverted, when we are in normal timeline (in that case we have to shoot someone is already shot, we observe this as we revive some inverted guy) (like Neil). When we are in normal timeline, we can not kill an inverted guy who is alive at that point as our wiev we can only wound him. To sum up, when two guys in different time direction are fighting, they can never kill each other, they can only wound each other. If one kills another, it should be as "the guy who killed Niel"s perspective, killer sees this killing as reviwing this person.

[@ThisIsWhereTheFunBegins8588]

Why would a mortal wound travel differently in time than a normal one? I don' understand.

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

Don't think of them from a flesh point of view, but more of what they do to Causality. Protagonist cannot reverse catch a bullet off the table if that bullet is normal. That would break Causality. The universe just doesn't allow it. You cannot be dead before you are killed, the universe just doesn't allow it. Thats my thinking anyway. Cheers.