Time Turners and Lupin's apparent premature ageing

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 157007

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch at ...>
wrote:

> > ...edited....
> > bboyminn:
> > ... 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. ... 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. ... And why would 
> time travel be any different? ...
> 
> > bboyminn:
> > ... 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. ...edited...
> 
>  

bboyminn:

But there is a very BIG difference, the present and the 
future are unknown, the past is known, history has 
already been written. 

You may get the bright idea to go back and kill Hitler, 
but you can't know that that would make the future better. 
Hitler made some very irrational decisions. If he were 
killed someone more intelligent might have taken his place 
and caused Germany to win the war. If that happened, the 
present from which you time traveled would no longer exist. 

True the time and date at which you time traveled would 
exist again, but the circumstance under which you made 
your decision and the circumstances of the world that 
you left when you time traveled would no longer exist. It
is conceivable that if you went back in time and killed 
Hitler, you might have set of a chain reaction that would 
mean you were never born. Now you have a very substantial 
paradox.

The present and the future are infinitely variable. They 
are filled with endless possibilities. The past however 
is generally fix, it is known. To change it, is to take 
far greater risk, than making decisions to change the 
present and the future. 

Again, the farther back in time you go, the greater the risk
you take. If you change something very locally just an hour 
or two ago, the consequences to the present are much much 
smaller that going back a year or years and making a major 
change to history.

I simply can't agree that changing the present and the 
future are in the same class as changing the past.

> > 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:
> 
> ... Time travel is a deadly trap that few writers escape 
> from alive. In my opinion JKR is among those who died.
> ...
> 
> Ken
>

bboyminn:

I've generally found from discussion in this group that people who see
problems with JKR's time travel are people who refuse to actually see
what happened. Generally, they insist that time happened twice; one
time with and one time without (with and without whatever).

If you take the approach that time happened only once, but Harry and
Hermione happened twice, it gets much easier. If you view it right,
JKR's account of time travel is as reasonable and consistent as is
possible for time travel. 

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn