Time-Turner

[random_monkey0_0]

No: HPFGUIDX 39813

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" <aiz24 at h...> wrote:

> Eloise wrote:
> 
> > >But again, I have
> > > the
> > > problem that the Dumbledore who sent them on their mission 
belongs to 
> >the
> > > world where Buckbeak *was* executed. If they are creating a 
simultaneous
> > > history, then that implies that there is a history where Sirius 
*is*
> > > kissed..... Doesn't it? ....genuine question, because I start to 
get
> > > confused
> > > when I think about this too long. ;-)
> 
> And Naama responded:
> 
> > > No, it doesn't create simultaneous histories. What happened in 
PoA is
> > > that Buckbeak had never been executed. Ever.
> 

Amy Z:
> Something *has* been changed, though 
we can't 
> say *when* it was changed because time as we usually speak of it has 
lost 
> its meaning.  Otherwise, in that first scene in the hospital wing, 
> Dumbledore would just smile at Harry and Hermione and say "Don't 
worry, you 
> already fixed everything."

No, really, there is a cause-and-effect for this. The problem is, the 
cause comes *after* the effect, because of the time travel. Think 
about it: Harry is in the forest, and sees himself do Expectum 
Patronus. Then he goes on, blah, blah, blah, then goes back in time.  
He *had* to go back in time, or else, he would have created a time 
paradox. If he didn't go back, he wouldn't have been able to save 
hmself, so he wouldn't have been able to choose whether or not to go 
back in time. It's weird, even for a time paradox.

 Think of it like a rollercoaster with a loop-the-loop. You go forward 
to a point, then curve up and go back. Then you go forward again, but 
*next to* the last bit of track. From one direction, it appears that 
you are back at the same spot, but really, you're not. That's what 
Harry did.

Amy Z:
> Harry and Hermione are doing exactly what they are not supposed to 
do, and 
> so they need to make the change as narrow as possible.  No fooling 
around 
> with Pettigrew or the Invisibility Cloak or anything else Harry's 
tempted to 
> do, because this is already a risky business.

If Harry had taken the Cloak, it would have created another paradox: 
Snape might not have found them, so they wouldn't need to go back in 
time, so noone would pick up the Cloak, so Snape would find them, so 
they would go back in time...

In other words, they can only do things that happened. They are 
"fulfilling prophecy", so to speak. They have to cause the effects 
that have already happened. 

Amy Z:
> Two, we are mistaken when we think of "change events" as referring 
only to 
> BIG things:  saving someone who would have died, removing an 
Invisibility 
> Cloak that someone would have used.  Really, *any* overlapping of 
time 
> changes the way things were.  The second Harry and Hermione flip 
over the 
> Time Turner, they have changed things.  Different atoms are now 
swirling 
> around the Entrance Hall.  

No, the same atoms that swirled in the Entrance hall the first time 
are still there. Possibly different people are breathing them, but 
that depends on your theory of time travel. 

There are two theories, that I know of. One is that if you see the 
future, you can change it. Therefore, if you go to the past, knowing 
the future, you can change the past, and, therefore, the future. This 
is a tough one, because it brings in all that "go back and kill your 
grandfather" type stuff.

The other is that if you know the future, you cannot change it. 
Therefore, if you go back in time, knowing the future, you can't do 
anything. in fact, anything you do to try to change the future (or the 
past) will probably result in what you didn't want happening. For 
example: You see in the future that, let's say, the baby starts 
crying. You run upstairs and try to prevent whatever will make her 
cry, but on your way into her room, you fall and hit the floor, making 
a crash. The baby starts crying because you fell. This seems to be the 
theory Jo uses. 

The Random Monkey, who thinks about these things waaay too much.