PoA: an explanation of the time/patronus paradox

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 67908

stlcole theorised on the Theory of Time-Travel in post #67757:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/67757

Firstly, this theory has been covered extensively in the past- see 
posts 48887, 48970, 48978 for the explanations I made, and there are 
more posts around those numbers about the whole time travel issue 
(48932 is another good one). These posts may be of sepcific interest 
to you because they actually arose from the discussion of Lupin being 
James which you have also mentioned.

Firstly- I *don't* support the 'second gunman' theory. I support the 
theory that there is only one plane of time, and when you go back in 
time you are not transported to another parallel dimension, but 
actually go back in time to the actual events. This is mostly because 
Harry1 and Hermione1 actually observe themselves (Harry2 and 
Hermione2) *before* they know that they have to go back in time. 
That is- They are sneaking to Hagrid's under the invisibilty cloak 
and hear: 

"a last pair of people hurrying across the Hall, and a door 
slamming." 
(PoA, Chapter 16 'Professor Trelawneys' Prediction' Page 240 Aus.) 

Then, after going back in time three hours:

"Hermione seixed Harry's arm and dragged him across the hall to the 
door of a broom cupboard; she opened it, pushed him inside amoungst 
the buckets and mops, followed him in, them slammed the door behind 
them.' 
(PoA, Chapter 21, 'Hermione's Secret' Page 289 Aus.)

So, I think that if Harry2 and Hermione2 were taken to a different 
time plane, then JRK would not have included this reference to 
themselves actually being there, the 'first time around' before we as 
the readers are even aware that magical Time-Travel exists. I think 
that JKR is presenting a verison of time-travel which works 'self-
consitently' not working in parallel dimensions.

Back to your theory-
If the 'second gunman' theory *is* true- is it also true that someone 
else saved Buckbeak???

We know that in the 'second' time (so to speak) Buckbeak is saved and 
the Patronus is cast, by saying that someone else cast the Patronus 
are you also saying that Buckbeak also had to have been saved by 
someone else, identity unknown??? 

I ask this question simply because- if the answer is yes- that you 
think that everything that Harry and Hermione do the 'second' time 
was already done by person X, then why did Dumbledore send them back 
in the first place????

The is Beaky was already saved and the other person could fly him up 
to Sirius's window and save him, and someone else alreasy cast the 
patronus which saved Sirius Harry etc at the lake, then where is the 
point of sending them back in time in the first place???


When you are referring to parts from OoP which changed your mind 
about Time Travel- did it include this one at the end in the 
Department of Mysteries when the cabinet of Time-Turners collapse?

" The jet of red light flew right over the Death Eater's shoulder and 
hit the glass-fronted cabinet on the wall full of variously shaped 
hour-glasses; the cabinet fell to the floor and burst apart, glass 
flying everywhere, sprang back up on to the wall, fully mended, then 
fell down again, and shattered -'
(OoP, Chapter 35 'Beyond the Veil' Pg 696 Aus.)

Here are my thoughts on this passage:
I suppose we must assume that these hour-glass objects are time-
turners, though I can't see and exact reference to them as Time-
Turners. Although, they are distinct from the Bell Jar of wispy cloud 
which collapses on the Death Eater and turns his head into a baby's. 
The jar of 'time' as Hermione observes has different affects than the 
time-turners (it physically moves whatever's inside it back through 
their history), so I'm not going to refer to it.

What is intriging about the crashing Time-Turners is that when they 
crash, they repair themselves and crash again in the future. If they 
were indeed Time-Turners as we know them, I would expect them to 
crash once, then dissapear, only to have reappeared an hour (or some 
incriment of time) earlier- so that Harry might have remarked earlier-
 'There were two cabinets, one crashed and one intact.' But, that 
doesn't happen. Not only does the cabinet actually reverse itself and 
repair itself into the state it was in moments before the Time-
Turners crashes, but it does this all in 'normal' time (that is, 
in 'real' time- with no jumps into the future or past). This, to me, 
suggests that the actions of the crashing Time-Turners is not the 
usual actions they perform. Even if these were Time-Turners that took 
you into the future and not the past for the cabinet to reverse it's 
actions but in proper time going forward and then continue to do so 
seems to me to be a malfunctioning Time-Turner. After all- in PoA 
there are clearly two Harrys and Hermiones at the same time- it was 
not as if they were taken back in time to the exact position they 
were in three hours ago (which would have been under the invisibility 
cloak sneaking to Hagrid's). 

Of course, I am assuming that when the Time-Turners crash that they 
are moving through time. It seems to me that if you turn over a Time-
Turner (like in PoA) you go through time, and when you break and Time-
Turner you are stuck eternally in a perpetually repeating loop. So, I 
think *breaking* a Time-Turner as opposed to turning it over actually 
changes the way it works- and not just changes but makes the magical 
object malfunction.

So, whilst I do think that this passage in the Time Room at the 
Department of Mysteries is intriging- it doesn't change my views on 
Time-Travel, mostly because we've seen Time-Turners being used in a 
way we've never seen yet.

Anyway, back to what you were saying. What I first want to know is, 
why do you think that Patronus Harry saw whilst the Dementors were 
closing in on him was a unicorn? My PoA says: 

"Harry raised his head a few inches and saw an animal amidst the 
light, galloping away across the lake... it was bright as a 
unicorn... Harry watched it canter to a halt..." (Chapter 21 'The 
Dementor's Kiss' Pg 282 Aus)

This suggests that it is 'as bright as a unicorn' although he didn't 
say it 'looked like unicorn.' Harry was observing the quality of 
brightness it possessed. But, wouldn't *all* Patronuses be this 
bright, seeing as they are all formed from wipsy bright mist?? When 
Harry casts his stag later on it is described as 

'a blinding, dazzling silver animal... It was shining as brightly as 
the moon above..." (Chapter 22, 'Hermione's Secret' Pg 301 Aus.) 

So it appears that Harry's patronus is shining bright as well- and, a 
stag and a unicorn do look similar (I would assume, never actually 
having seen a unicorn in the flesh :-D ). And Harry was nearly 
passing out the first time, and when Harry casts his own Patronus he 
still has to screw up his eyes to see what it was.

Another point, when Dumbledore and Lupin fight the Dementors what 
they produce is described as 'silver stuff.' This to me seems to be 
an indistinct Patronus, not a corporeal Patronus (as Madam Bones 
would say :-D ). So, I don't think that there is any evidence that 
either of them can actually produce a proper Patronus. And, why do 
you think it could be outright likely that Dumbledore's Patronus 
could be a unicorn??? I'm not contesting that assumption, I'm just 
curious as to why you think it could be, as whenever anyone theorises 
on Dumbledore's theoretical Animagus form unicorn never seem to come 
up.


Olivia Wood responded to stlcole's original post as such:

<snip stuff about why she thinks it was James Potter>
(About Buckbeak)
>Maybe 
>Dumbledore, being such a great wizard and all, was going to turn 
>Buckbeak invisible or banish him away anyway, but then didn't have 
>to do it because Buckbeak dissapeared by himself. Maybe he saw Harry 
>and Hermione in the trees and assumed they were going to try to help 
>Buckbeak, not even knowing they were from the future. 

What intrigues me about this assumption is that by assuming this to 
be true you have to accept that there was only *one* plane of time 
which Harry2 and Hermione2 went back to. You see, you are making 
Dumbldore1 (before he sends Harry and Hermione back in time) to be 
feelni the affects of Harry2 and Hermione2 before they're actually 
gone back in time. This works perfectly if there is only one plane of 
time- that is, that when you go back in time you are not transported 
to a parallel dimension, but are tranported to the actual past that 
will only ever occur once. If there was only *one* plane of time 
where people go back in time and can interact with themselves then 
this copletely dispells any theory you had about James Potter casting 
the Patronus- you see, for someone else to cast the Patronus there 
has to be *two* planes of time- the first time (where you are 
theorising that it was James Potter, not Harry) and the second time 
(a parallel dimension caused by the Time-Turner being put into use) 
where it was Harry.

So, your post is internally contradicting itself by using two 
distinct forms of Time-Travel, when (seeing as Harry and Hermione 
only travel through time once) there has to be one only.

Anyway, I'll stop now :-D

~<(Laurasia)>~