PoA: an explanation of the time/patronus paradox (NEEDED)

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 67938

Sharana wrote:

>As Stlcole says, the events in OoP seem to suggest that the "second 
>gunman possibility" makes more sense. Although I'd love to hear what 
>the other members with whom I discussed the Paradox Theory think 
>about it. 

Me:

Well, the other members who got into the debate last time would 
include me, so I'll jump in here. The only question that I want 
answered is- what of OoP suggests that the 'second gunman theory' 
makes more sense??? 

Sharana wrote about the instances from the Time Room at the 
Department of Mysteries

<summary>Stuff about the Cabinet of Time-Turners

Me:

Okay, I posted previously (before I saw that you had replied also, 
sorry!) about these same things. (in #67908)
To summarise if you don't want to go back and read the whole thing- I 
suggested that the crashing cabinet full of time-turners was actually 
a malfucntioning Time-Turner. Because they don't seem to follow any 
rules we have already seen about Time-Turners. The cabinet crashes, 
reverses, and crashes again all whilst time progresses forward...
The cabinet crashes because it was hit with a spell, it falls over, 
it crashes (which disrupts the Time-Turners inside of it), so it is 
sent through time. The problem is that it doesn't travel backward in 
time (or else it would have vanished and reappeared someplace else 
and at an earlier time) and it doesn't go forward in time, or else it 
would have vanished and them reappeared some time later. ALSO- when 
Harry and Hermione go back in time they arrive in the state that they 
left- that is, with all the memories of what they have already 
experienced. Whereas the cabinet actually reforms into its unbroken 
self.
This either suggests that there is a different form of Time-Travel to 
which we are not yet aware of, or, that the Time-Turners were 
malfunctoning. I support that they were malfcuntioning, as, they were 
all smashed and not turned over. 

Sharana continued (about the bell jar):
>So there are physical changes to the person who travels back in 
>time, if we apply this to Hermione's time travel, then she did not 
>age more than everyone else.

I would say no. Hermone did age more that everyone else- she got 
overly tired and over-worked. If the Time-Turner put her into the 
same state that she was in the hour she was gonig back to, she would 
never get tired, because she's only ever have to deal with a normal 
24 hour day. The Time-Turner would effectively just keep bringing her 
back to the calm refreshed and well slept Hermione that she started 
off as. Also- the type of Time-Travel we see Hermione use leaves all 
her memories intact. What would be the point of sending her back in 
time to go to a lesson if it meant that she was deposited in the same 
state that she was in that hour previously??? She would forget 
everything that she had learned in other lessons that she had already 
been to in the same hour.

I think that the bell jar is another type of time travel. It doesn't 
send you physically back through time- it was not like the Death 
Eater's head disappeared and reappeared many years before (so that 
there would be tow of them at the same time)- it just reversed the 
aging of whatever was inside the jar. The head of the Death-Eater 
aged backwards, but it didn't actually go backwards through time. You 
see, the aging took time to occur. Real time, as in forward moving 
time. It just made him look younger- how he once looked years ago. 
(This brings up other issues, such as, why not put a dead body in the 
mist from the bell jar so that it ages in reverse to a time when it 
was not dead...) 
So, I think that the bell jar *does not* actually send things through 
time (as in, take this person in their current state to another time 
(year, month etc) entirely)- but it just reverses natural processes 
which occur over time. The bell jar reversed the effects which took 
years to occur over time, it did not actually send anything backwards 
in time. (That is, the baby stayed in the year 1996, it wasn't 
transpoted into, say, 1950)

That's all that I have to say for now. Please, for anyone who said 
that OoP makes the 'second gunman' thoery more plausible, I'd 
apreciate it if you answered my first question and tell me why!!!
Thanks!

~<(Laurasia)>~