Originally posted by Arga
View Post
according to my deepest thoughts...
Everything that is sent back to the past, when it arrives there, creates a new timeline. Some sci-fi stories which stick to the idea of an unique timeline, will have the future changed depending on what changes are made in the past. (like in "Back to the Future"). If you kill someone in the past, then this person in the future will suddenly disapear.. [I don't like this theory]..
No, I think that the original timeline still carries on (with the person being not dead), and the new timeline, created with the arrival of an element from the future, will continue its course with the guy being dead.
So any element traveling arriving from the future, (so an element that doesn't belong in the present), creates a new paralell timeline. And the previous timelines still exist on their own; the person who travelled back in time would simply be like a missing person in his original timeline.
And I theorize that it would be impossible to go "back to the future" in the original timeline that we're from, because it's a one-way trip. The changes we introduced in the past deviate the course of time to a second line, and if we try to go to the future again, it will necessary be in this second timeline.
So the idea of going back to the past to "correct" something, and then go back to our present and see the results will only be true in this second time line. The original first time line would still have the uncorrected thing in it.
Therefore, if a kino is sent in the past of timeline 1, when it arrives in the past, it continues "living" in a new timeline. (timeline 2) where it's found by people living in timeline 2. (because the people living in timeline 1 are dead now because of the bugs).
So if in timeline 2, they don't send the kino back in time, it doesn't contradict the fact that they found the old kino, because it has been sent to the past in timeline 1, not in timeline 2...
OK, it's late, I don't know if i make sense..
goodnight everybody!
Everything that is sent back to the past, when it arrives there, creates a new timeline. Some sci-fi stories which stick to the idea of an unique timeline, will have the future changed depending on what changes are made in the past. (like in "Back to the Future"). If you kill someone in the past, then this person in the future will suddenly disapear.. [I don't like this theory]..
No, I think that the original timeline still carries on (with the person being not dead), and the new timeline, created with the arrival of an element from the future, will continue its course with the guy being dead.
So any element traveling arriving from the future, (so an element that doesn't belong in the present), creates a new paralell timeline. And the previous timelines still exist on their own; the person who travelled back in time would simply be like a missing person in his original timeline.
And I theorize that it would be impossible to go "back to the future" in the original timeline that we're from, because it's a one-way trip. The changes we introduced in the past deviate the course of time to a second line, and if we try to go to the future again, it will necessary be in this second timeline.
So the idea of going back to the past to "correct" something, and then go back to our present and see the results will only be true in this second time line. The original first time line would still have the uncorrected thing in it.
Therefore, if a kino is sent in the past of timeline 1, when it arrives in the past, it continues "living" in a new timeline. (timeline 2) where it's found by people living in timeline 2. (because the people living in timeline 1 are dead now because of the bugs).
So if in timeline 2, they don't send the kino back in time, it doesn't contradict the fact that they found the old kino, because it has been sent to the past in timeline 1, not in timeline 2...
OK, it's late, I don't know if i make sense..
goodnight everybody!
Did I mention that time travel and alternate timelines make my head hurt?
Originally posted by harakiri
View Post
That is actually a good point,its good to see RDA back in Stargate,but its not enough "Jack" for it to be worth the stone usage.
And about the "wanted" cancellation: It was some comments in that direction right after Air 1/2/3,but most of the time it was said that since the "hardcore" fans could never like this it would not last long. And I consider myself as a big fan,but like the new feeling in this show. The dark feeling is great. Its not SGA/SG1,but it is Stargate in some way.
And about the "wanted" cancellation: It was some comments in that direction right after Air 1/2/3,but most of the time it was said that since the "hardcore" fans could never like this it would not last long. And I consider myself as a big fan,but like the new feeling in this show. The dark feeling is great. Its not SGA/SG1,but it is Stargate in some way.
Comment