Rai Theory

[lorddunlow]

Yeah, I really hate the idea that time travel creates "alternate realities". I'm more a "can't change things with time travel" kind of guy.

[The Dirt Gang]

Yeah, I really hate the idea that time travel creates "alternate realities". I'm more a "can't change things with time travel" kind of guy.

+1

[bygranddesign]

multiverse solves the time travel paradox.

By killing your parents before you were born all you did was create another reality in which you weren't born (with your original timeline of you being born still intact) .. The idea that some invisible force would stop you doesn't compute with me .... If we actually had time travel capability - you should just be able to wreak havoc with the past and it not effect your timeline reality - its just you *SQUEE*-ing up a newly created timeline.

I like Dr. Who .. but there are too many paradoxes at times and "timey whimey" is not a good enough explanation

[bygranddesign]

I don't want another Marvel type Multiverse. I liked that 4001 was the definitive future of the VALIANT U. It has some continuity drawbacks, but if its far enough in the future (like 2000 years) and you keep a few things about the past vague, then it shouldn't be an issue.

You can still have present day characters pay a visit, but there is something cool about a future that you can't avoid, that is not changeable by any action one takes. Maybe a visit to the future drives a character to do something, but in the end it only helps lead to that future.

One theory about a time traveller, like Ivar, is that visits to different times always took place and always resulted in that outcome. Otherwise you create too many paradoxes. You know, wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey stuff.

i think there is something cool about having it a fixed timeline as well .. but I also think it might make it more difficult on the writers who might want to kill off certain characters or have earth changing events - you always have to have that 4001 timeline in mind. I also think multiverse solves paradoxes.

This might be part of the reason why they are taking their time with it - it's a lot to work out, imo.

[BugsySig]

I don't want another Marvel type Multiverse. I liked that 4001 was the definitive future of the VALIANT U. It has some continuity drawbacks, but if its far enough in the future (like 2000 years) and you keep a few things about the past vague, then it shouldn't be an issue.

You can still have present day characters pay a visit, but there is something cool about a future that you can't avoid, that is not changeable by any action one takes. Maybe a visit to the future drives a character to do something, but in the end it only helps lead to that future.

One theory about a time traveller, like Ivar, is that visits to different times always took place and always resulted in that outcome. Otherwise you create too many paradoxes. You know, wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey stuff.

i think there is something cool about having it a fixed timeline as well .. but I also think it might make it more difficult on the writers who might want to kill off certain characters or have earth changing events - you always have to have that 4001 timeline in mind. I also think multiverse solves paradoxes.

This might be part of the reason why they are taking their time with it - it's a lot to work out, imo.

That's why, with enough distance, it really doesn't matter who may get killed off. Even if there is an "Archer" in 4001, and a few years later a writer kills off Obie, there are plenty of explanations for the ancestry (adoption, Mary-Maria or another "Archer" sibling, Archie's all adopting the last name "Archer, etc).

In the original there were always connections, but other than Gilad and Solar (two immortals), there were no present day characters popping up 2000 years later.

And for another example, look at us. How much do we refer to one incident in the year 13 AD? I'm a history teacher and I can't point to anything in particular that effects our current day. Even if a 4001 timeline writer wanted to refer to a major, WW2 type event, that would still be several hundred or thousands of years after the present day timeline.

[lorddunlow]

multiverse solves the time travel paradox.

By killing your parents before you were born all you did was create another reality in which you weren't born (with your original timeline of you being born still intact) .. The idea that some invisible force would stop you doesn't compute with me .... If we actually had time travel capability - you should just be able to wreak havoc with the past and it not effect your timeline reality - its just you *SQUEE*-ing up a newly created timeline.

I like Dr. Who .. but there are too many paradoxes at times and "timey whimey" is not a good enough explanation

But it wouldn't be "some unknown force". Something you didn't know that happened at that point in time prevents you from doing so. It could be you from a further point in the future stopping you from doing it. It could be a dog biting you on the leg before you pulled the trigger to kill an ancestor. You simply can't change things. Any action you take has already happened and you're just filling in the missing puzzle piece. That's my preferred theory of time travel. Paradoxes won't happen because they can't.

[bygranddesign]

That's why, with enough distance, it really doesn't matter who may get killed off. Even if there is an "Archer" in 4001, and a few years later a writer kills off Obie, there are plenty of explanations for the ancestry (adoption, Mary-Maria or another "Archer" sibling, Archie's all adopting the last name "Archer, etc).

In the original there were always connections, but other than Gilad and Solar (two immortals), there were no present day characters popping up 2000 years later.

And for another example, look at us. How much do we refer to one incident in the year 13 AD? I'm a history teacher and I can't point to anything in particular that effects our current day. Even if a 4001 timeline writer wanted to refer to a major, WW2 type event, that would still be several hundred or thousands of years after the present day timeline.

Good points. Either way I'm looking forward to whatever they cook up. I'm sure it will have plenty of twists that we weren't expecting and provide for some interesting discussions

[bygranddesign]

But it wouldn't be "some unknown force". Something you didn't know that happened at that point in time prevents you from doing so. It could be you from a further point in the future stopping you from doing it. It could be a dog biting you on the leg before you pulled the trigger to kill an ancestor. You simply can't change things. Any action you take has already happened and you're just filling in the missing puzzle piece. That's my preferred theory of time travel. Paradoxes won't happen because they can't.

This is a paradox, isn't it? You go back in time and you want to KILL 'insert bad man here' when he is a baby. Why are you stopping yourself at some other future fixed point unless you actually went through with it and changed history and for whatever reason killing this baby caused some worse outcome to the world? There has to be a reason why you are going back in time to stop yourself ...

I think most people probably believe in that theory of filling in missing pieces but it just doesn't compute - Chaos just makes more sense to me