Time Turners and Lupin's apparent premature ageing

[Ken Hutchinson]

No: HPFGUIDX 157003


> bboyminn:
> 
> The only time turners we have seen work in one hour increments. There
> could be others, but we've only seen 'hour' Time Turners.
> 
> So, assuming one turn per second of time, the time turner would have
> to spin for 2.4 continuous hours to go back a year. Two spins per
> second would mean 1.7 hours of spinning. Not impossible, but that is a
> long time to sit and keep a time turner spinning. Then, to catch up
> with yourself, you would have to live a whole year and be on the spot
> to take over for your-about-to-time-travel-self when you disappear. 

Ken:

If the MoM had a cabinet full of time turners surely some of them were
calibrated at more than one hour per turn. It doesn't really matter though.
Hand me that time turner will you? Thanks. Let's see are the bearings free?:

Yes they are! No sweat, I just give the gizmo a flick with the end of my 
finger and wheeeee! we've gone back a day and a half in a few seconds.
Now I will just pull this can of compressed air for cleaning lenses out of 
my desk drawer, aim the stream at the time turner,  and hang onto your 
hat, we're going BAAAAAaaaaack!!!

--OR--

Drat! The bearings are stiff. Ok, we'll just tape this little strip of plastic
carefully around the hourglass so it makes a little wheel. Now I get out
my battery powered Dremel tool, tighten the rubber mandrel that usually
holds a sanding drum into the chuck, crank it up to 20 krpm, hold the 
mandrel against our makeshift wheel and Captain we're moving at warp
10 in reverse NOOOooooowwww!!!

Ok, either way we're back. It was Krum to get the Snitch and Ireland
to win, right? Just be sure not to place the bet with Bagman and we've
got a few years to plan how to use the winnings. Or, do you suppose
that if we spun this thing the other way that we would go forward??

I don't think that is too hard. Sometimes if you want to solve a problem
you have to think like a Muggle. Canon may not support anything 
other than hour time turners and maybe you can't go forward, only
back. Who cares? We cleaned up big time on the World Cup. Be 
patient and enjoy life.

> bboyminn:
> I hestiate to get into this, but what if you died during your year of
> time travel, there would be no you to take over for you at the instant
> you time traveled. While I don't want to start another discussion on
> the mechanic of time travel, I am trying to point out that the greater
> the span of time in which you time travel, the greater the risk that
> you will never come back.
> 

Ken:

I don't see the problem. If you take a journey by boat and the boat
goes down, you drown. Your friends mourn you, the universe yawns.
And why would time travel be any different? No one needs to take over
for you if you are dead. Your life ended, you are now living in the 
bosom of Abraham. It's even better than winning big on the World
Cup.

> bboyminn:
> I would also like to point out that while time traveling, you must be
> very careful not to alter time/history in any significant way, or the
> furture you were in when you time traveled may not be there when you
> get back. (The Butterfly Effect)

Ken:

I would argue that your whole reason for going back was to alter
time/history. If you did not intend to alter time and history you had
no real reason to go back. Going backwards and living your life is
no more dangerous to the universe than going forward from any 
point in your life. Your actions may have unintended consequences
in either case. You live your entire life taking actions that you hope 
will positively influence your future. That is what humans and all 
other life forms we know of do.

The butterfly effect was coined by a weather researcher who played a 
key role in starting the study of nonlinear systems or chaos theory.
He noted that in chaotic mathematical systems small changes in 
the assumed initial conditions could produce large diversions in
results a relatively short time later. He termed this the butterfly 
effect, joking that if a butterfly in St. Louis did or did not flap its
wings at a given moment a hurricane would or would not hit 
the Bahamas a month later. He may have been thinking of the same
science fiction story I read as a boy that involved a time machine
and a dead butterfly.

The butterfly effect has been Hollywoodized all out of proportion.
Whether you time travel or not you need not fear it. World War I
would not have been averted if some butterfly had decided not 
to flap its wings at a critical moment. It would not have been 
averted if a group of Serbian nationalists had decided to have 
a lie in one critical morning either. It happened because Europe 
was an armed camp with a hair trigger. Someone or something
was going to set it off, it was only a matter of time. There are 
far too many butterfilies in our world and the Potterverse for 
a single one to have any real effect.

Large intentional changes directed at key events are another matter.
Rescuing a hippogriff or casting a Patronus at the right moment
can have a real impact on the future as you remember it. But these
things have the same impact as they would have had if you had thought
to do them the first time through. You don't know that impact
completely in advance either way. It is a risk you take when you go
back to change things. If all you do is save the Archduke you leave
the ticking bomb in place and only delay the explosion. If you go
back far enough and work long enough to change the diplomatic
and military culture of Europe you stand a chance of saving 
millions of lives and dooming Adolf to a career as a third rate
painter.

 
> bboyminn:
> These are just more reasons and more complications that confirm to me
> that no one is doing any significant time travel in the books.
> 

Ken:

I don't agree with your reasons but I too hope that this technology does
not reappear in the final book. Time travel is a deadly trap that few 
writers escape from alive. In my opinion JKR is among those who died.
Time travel storys are best when they are only about time travel and 
even then they usually leave me unconvinced. HP is far too complex a 
story to have time travel thrown in as a "hey look everyone, we 
have time turners too" sort of element. It was an unneccessary and silly
intrusion into the plot. Hopefully someone managed to convince 
Rowling of this and *that* is why the blasted things were destroyed
in OotP. My only real HP related fear is that a few of them survived.

The only time travel stories I have enjoyed are those that are played
for comedy. Douglas Adams did it right. The two time travel episodes
of the Red Dwarf that I recall left me in stitches. Rowan Atkinson had 
a brilliant one too. Hmm, the British Isles may harbor a gene for good
time travel authors but I think it skipped Rowling.

Ken