When the hell did Tapion go to?

[Olivier Hague]

Wow, so Trunks was the only person who existed in his time. I did not know that.

Wow. Way to miss the point.

You're confusing perceptive time with occurent time I see.

You're making up terms, I see. Could you come up with any kind of source about that "occurrent time" of yours, for example?
Besides, bringing hard physics into this would only result in yet another kitten massacre...

[Xyex]

Wow. Way to miss the point.

No, I think I nailed the point pretty well there. You were saying that Trunks time couldn't possibly be going forward since time only passes when it's experienced. I was merely pointing out that there's billions of other people in his time experiencing the forward progression thus completely negating your arguement.

You're making up terms, I see. Could you come up with any kind of source about that "occurrent time" of yours, for example?
Besides, bringing hard physics into this would only result in yet another kitten massacre...

Not making up anything, though I can't offer any sources as I'm speaking entirely from my memory of my old 12th grade physics class. I've heard both come up fairly frequently on various space documentaries as well, in relation to discussions of time dilation mostly, but also in connection to how the light always travels at, well, light speed, no matter what.

But let's put that aside (and spare the kittens!) and focus on something else now. I don't need occurent time to poke holes in your perceptive time based theory. Let's begin, shall we?

Time passes when you (i.e. the observer, the referential) make your way in your timeline. That's "time passing".
At the risk of sounding like a zen monk, you could say that time doesn't pass unless you're here to feel it pass.

A starting issue with this theroy is that time passed in order for you to be born. Passing that off as passing because your parents were there can be done. However, go back far enough and there were no humans. Go back even further and there was no life at all. Therefor nothing percieve time and, on this theroy, no time. Thus it would be impossible for life to be born, for humans to come to exist, etc... Time passed long before we came along.

If I was using hard physics (and could remember the spicifcs) I'd get into the whole perceptive varriation by location issue, but I'm not, and I can't remember the details well enough to debate it, so I wont. I'll instead move on to the collective perceptive side of matters. That is, everyone's got there own perception of the passage of time not linked to another individual. For this reason, even after Trunks leaves his time-line, others in that time would continue to progress forward through time and thus time would continue to progress forward.

[Olivier Hague]

To be quite honest, I'm getting tired of this argument, and I'm not sure I could really express myself clearly anyway. I think you simply can't wrap your head around the concept of the passing of time, and you probably think the same about me... Maybe we should leave it at that...

Not making up anything, though I can't offer any sources as I'm speaking entirely from my memory of my old 12th grade physics class.

Well, Google doesn't seem to know what you mean by "occurrent time", at any rate...

[Jerseymilk]

Besides, bringing hard physics into this would only result in yet another kitten massacre...

To be quite honest, I'm getting tired of this argument, and I'm not sure I could really express myself clearly anyway. I think you simply can't wrap your head around the concept of the passing of time, and you probably think the same about me... Maybe we should leave it at that...

My, how convenient for you.

[caejones]

*head asplode*

Humanity doesn't understand time. Getting closer to understanding, maybe... but we do not understand time at all, and in Dragonball, there's not enough information to figure out how it works in relation to time travel any more than there is here... especially since we have this alternate universe stuff. (Umm, I need to learn to spell better words. )

Time=interval between events. Or... in relativity time and space are interchangeable (Bwa?). So the question is, does the interval between Trunks' time machine disappearing and reappearing in one timeline correlate to the time the machine was in an alternate timeline? We don't know. Further speculation is therefore... umm... this thread. ^^.

Though I have to wonder, if Minoshia and Tapion were sent to opposite ends of the universe, how did Hoi find them both in only a thousand years? (And at that, we have the point that if they were in the Southern galaxy, opposite ends of the universe ... umm... meh, confusion.).

[Olivier Hague]

My, how convenient for you.

Gee, thanks for the input, Jerseymilk. How constructive of you.
And you're right, maybe we should just go on eventhough we apparently simply don't understand each other's perception of time. That should end well. Then, you could claim that I'm reponsible for things getting out of hand.

You don't like me. I get it already. You really don't need to post just to reaffirm that.

[desirecampbell]

If Xyex wants to get into the timeline stuff again, I'm all for it - but in another thread, and without all this drama. Can't we all just get along guys?

[Dayspring]

If Xyex wants to get into the timeline stuff again, I'm all for it - but in another thread, and without all this drama. Can't we all just get along guys?

The problem is he's ignoring examples and whole parts of a person's rebuttal. That'll cause drama in any discussion.

[Mr.Piccolo]

Just drop it, guys. There's no point in trying to reason with certain people...Anyway, Tapion went back to his time before the monster was released. Yeah, yeah..the sword thing didn't make sense but it was a movie so yeah..Hope that answers the question.

[Olivier Hague]

The problem is he's ignoring examples and whole parts of a person's rebuttal.

I'm just saying your example isn't valid. Definitely not conclusive, anyway.
Just because Trunks comes back at a later date in the future, that doesn't necessarily mean "that's how time works: the same amount of time passed in the future as it passed in the present". Maybe he went back at a later date because he programmed the machine to come back at a later date. Maybe he came back at a later date because the machine is imprecise (like you pointed out yourself, he was late the day the Androids first appeared).

As for me finding the idea of "time passing in the future as it does in the present" nonsensical... Well, yeah, I do think it doesn't make any sense. I tried to explain why. Maybe I failed. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's another way to look at time and I simply don't "get it".
I just don't really feel like arguing at vitam eternam about that because:
1) discussing time is a bit of a delicate issue, and I'm not sure I could think of better ways to express myself (you and your pesky English language! *shakes fist*)
and
2) if I were to be wrong, I'd have wasted our collective time.
In other words, I'm confident, but maybe not that confident, this time around.

Just drop it, guys. There's no point in trying to reason with certain people...

Gee, thanks for the cheap shot.

[Mr.Piccolo]

I made a point not to name names, sir. I try not to be too obvious. But again, lets stay on topic please. If anyone has something to say to someone else, just pm or let it be..

[Olivier Hague]

I made a point not to name names, sir.

Oh, please...

[desirecampbell]

*cries again*

Goddamnit people, can't we have a civilized conversation? If "certain people" don't like "certain other people", then that's what PRIVATE MESSAGING is for. Is your comment about the thread topic? If 'yes' then post - if not then PM.

[Mr.Piccolo]

Heh, whenever a question is answered, the thread should automatically lock. That way things are on topic and there won't be room for flamming and such. I don't like when someone quotes themselves but I think I answered this one as well. Could someone correct my answer if they think its wrong (pst, that'd be on topic)?

[...]Anyway, Tapion went back to his time before the monster was released. Yeah, yeah..the sword thing didn't make sense but it was a movie so yeah..Hope that answers the question.

[Jerseymilk]

My, how convenient for you.

Gee, thanks for the input, Jerseymilk. How constructive of you.
And you're right, maybe we should just go on eventhough we apparently simply don't understand each other's perception of time. That should end well. Then, you could claim that I'm reponsible for things getting out of hand.

You don't like me. I get it already. You really don't need to post just to reaffirm that.

I have no feelings towards you either way, but if you want to throw out the "I'm being victimized" defense, be my guest. *shrug*

My post to you actually did have a point. That being whenever someone takes the time to make valid counterpoints that actually challenge your posts, you either disregard what they've said or fob them off with cop outs such as "oh well, this is just going to get us nowhere and it's pointless". To me it's disrespectful to the other members here and the effort they've put in. Plus perhaps you don't realize this, but your tone and words often come off to people as very dismissive and arrogant. You can carry on a debate *without* treating people like they're "misled peons you need to enlighten". I think you have great information a lot of times and can make threads very interesting, thus contributing greatly to this forum. It's just the execution that I have a problem with.

[Olivier Hague]

whenever someone takes the time to make valid counterpoints that actually challenge your posts, you either disregard what they've said

I didn't disregard what they said. It's just that I don't think the whole thing about Trunks' time of arrival in the future is conclusive evidence at all. And I explained why.

Now, I did comment on the "hard physics" thing because, let's face it, we're talking about "Dragon Ball", here. I really don't think discussing the effects of near-lightspeed travels has any kind of relevance when talking about a kid-oriented series where people somehow manage to produce enough energy to blow up planets by eating a lot and getting angry.
Plus, I like kittens. I think they're cute. Please think of the kittens.

or fob them off with cop outs such as "oh well, this is just going to get us nowhere and it's pointless".

I simply don't feel like arguing about this ad vitam eternam, and again, I explained why above.
Also, you make it sound like I always "fob people off with cop outs"... Very well, then. Could you come up with an example?

[Xyex]

Admittedly, hard physics and Dragonball go together about as well as chocolate and spinach... Bulma and Co got to Jupiter in seconds, to them and the people on Earth. Goku got to Namek in 6 days, to him and the people on Namek. Obviously our phyiscs don't apply.

But this applies, too, to the time-travel of the series. It is pretty much implied that the present continues to proceed when a person is in the past by the way Trunks didn't re-appear right as he left, or even shortly after he'd left.

But I'm going to go onto something else. An idea that occured to me a little earlier today. When you talk about time and the present you're refering to the 'now' and that the 'now' changes when you go into the past. Not so in the Dragonball universe as shown by the alternate time-lines. Yes, going back creates a 'now' with it's own new future. But the 'now' that you came from, your original time, is still there and still going since you've created an alternate flow of time.

Hmm, I'll use a river as an example. If you go back and create a divergence in the river the new river you made will snake off on its own. But that doesn't make the old river stop flowing passed that point. It's still there and still going, seperate and unique from the new river you created. The time-lines are the same, IMO.

[Olivier Hague]

It is pretty much implied that the present continues to proceed when a person is in the past by the way Trunks didn't re-appear right as he left, or even shortly after he'd left.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. I don't think Trunks re-appearing a while after he left implies anything of the sort. I haven't seen anything implying the Time Machine had that kind of "limitation" when it comes to the "trip home". Trunks simply sets a date when he goes in the past, and I would assume that's also what he does when he goes back to his future.

I already mentioned a couple of "in-story" reasons as to why Trunks would re-appear "a while" after he left, but I think there's a "real life" reason (as in, "a reason why Toriyama would tell the story that way") that's actually more plausible: making him re-appear just as soon as he left would merely be distracting ("wait, whuh?? oh, yes, it's time travel! he can do that!") and serve no actual purpose (if anything, it would even make the "Bulma/Trunks farewell scene" less dramatic, as Trunks pretty much wouldn't have left at all, from Bulma's point of view).
And of course, there would also be that other "real life" reason, the usual one: Toriyama simply didn't think of that. Trunks left, so he came back later, "naturally". What do you mean, "time travels"? Oh, yeah, that...

When you talk about time and the present you're refering to the 'now' and that the 'now' changes when you go into the past. Not so in the Dragonball universe as shown by the alternate time-lines. Yes, going back creates a 'now' with it's own new future. But the 'now' that you came from, your original time, is still there and still going since you've created an alternate flow of time.

See, it's the "still going" part that just doesn't sit well with me. The original timeline was never "going" anywhere. It's just... there. It's made of events. Points in time.
Unless you put yourself in the shoes of somebody in the future who's experiencing these events one after the other, i.e. living through these events, it doesn't make much sense to talk about "time passing in the future". And of course, if you put yourself in the shoes of somebody who's in the future... well, you're not really talking about the "future" anymore, since you are now living it.
I mean, I, for one, certainly don't think in terms of "time passing in the past", for example. Do you? Do you think of these people who are currently (except not "currently" at all, actually) living under Bonaparte? As if the time was passing for them? "Right now, in the past"? ^^;

Hmm, I'll use a river as an example. If you go back and create a divergence in the river the new river you made will snake off on its own. But that doesn't make the old river stop flowing passed that point. It's still there and still going, seperate and unique from the new river you created.

I naturally don't disagree with that. There are two timelines (well, there should be more than that, actually, but let's keep it simple), and we saw them both in the series. Trunks' timeline obviously still has a future, even if he did create a new one by going in the past.

I just disagree with the way you put things... It just seems... "Trunks-centered"? Or maybe I should say "anthropocentrist", in general?
The reason why Trunks went back in the future a while after he left is because his future "couldn't go forward" until he spent some time in the past? Is that what you mean? I would think the entire future (I'm talking "billions of years", here) of his timeline is already there. It always was. It wasn't "waiting for Trunks" to be.

Or are you saying that the reason why Trunks went back in the future a while after he left is because his future "couldn't stay put" as long as he was spending time in the past? That goes back to your idea of "time passing in the future", but in that case, shouldn't the same be true for the past?
If Trunks spends, say, 3 years in the future to recharge the Time Machine or whatever, are you saying that he wouldn't be able to go back in the past on the same day he left (for example), but 3 years later? Because "time passed in the past"? How does that even work? So he doesn't really get to select a date at all? How did he get to select a date in the first place? And, naturally, how did Cell manage to go further back in time, then?

So yeah, I don't follow you. Maybe I simply don't get your point (in which case, feel free to correct me and precise your thoughts), but I can't understand why you would think the same amount of time should pass in the future for Trunks to come back... as has passed for Trunks while he was having fun with his dad in the past.
They're just points in time, and (in fiction works, anyway) a time machine is supposed to allow you to pick one and simply "go there". You're alluding to limitations that aren't mentioned in the series, and like I said above, I really don't see why you would think that the lapse of time between Trunks' departure and his return in the future "clearly implies" such limitations.

[Xyex]

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. I don't think Trunks re-appearing a while after he left implies anything of the sort. I haven't seen anything implying the Time Machine had that kind of "limitation" when it comes to the "trip home".

Except that that makes no sense. And it's not a limitation of the time machine, it's simply an impossibility. You can not go to what doesn't exist. If time didn't continue to flow after he left he would appear exactly at the time he left when he returned because there's nothing after it. It hasn't happened so it doesn't exist. Because he didn't time had to have gone forward.

See, it's the "still going" part that just doesn't sit well with me. The original timeline was never "going" anywhere. It's just... there. It's made of events. Points in time.

Ah, but see, there's your problem. Or, one of them, anyway. Time is not points. Time is not moments. Time is infinite even at the smallest level. It is entirely impossible to single out any single exact moment. You can string together these true moments to create a moment that you can identify and recognize.

But time is not composed of these moments, they're only a frame of refrence. History is the story of time, not the building blocks. It is time the flows around us. Time is a fluid and moving thing. Events, moments, they are just things that happen as time goes forward.

Unless you put yourself in the shoes of somebody in the future who's experiencing these events one after the other, i.e. living through these events, it doesn't make much sense to talk about "time passing in the future". And of course, if you put yourself in the shoes of somebody who's in the future... well, you're not really talking about the "future" anymore, since you are now living it.

I covered the events thing before so I'll move on to the other part of this. It's not the future we're talking about. At all. Trunks time is the future only to Goku and the others. That is the present to Trunks. That is the present of his time-line. The 'end' of it, if you will.

These are two time-lines, distinct and unique from each other. Why would the present of one time-line stop because one person from it was in a seperate time-line? Also, if you need to be there for time to occur, why would the other time-line continue to go forward after you returned to your own time?

I mean, I, for one, certainly don't think in terms of "time passing in the past", for example. Do you? Do you think of these people who are currently (except not "currently" at all, actually) living under Bonaparte? As if the time was passing for them? "Right now, in the past"? ^^;

No. I don't. But see, this also applies to the future. No, I don't think time passes in the past or the future. Time moves from the past into the future and we experience the present. But see, in the case of Trunks, he comes from the present into the past to create a new present going its own way. It is not the future I am saying is going forward. It is the present. His present, from which he came from.

This can also be applied to movie 13 with Tapion. Tapion goes back in time at the end of movie 13 and, presumably, stays in the past (which isn't really the past anymore as where he is is now a new present). Does this mean that the time he left is now frozen? Going by your theory it must be.

Or are you saying that the reason why Trunks went back in the future a while after he left is because his future "couldn't stay put" as long as he was spending time in the past? That goes back to your idea of "time passing in the future", but in that case, shouldn't the same be true for the past?
If Trunks spends, say, 3 years in the future to recharge the Time Machine or whatever, are you saying that he wouldn't be able to go back in the past on the same day he left (for example), but 3 years later? Because "time passed in the past"? How does that even work? So he doesn't really get to select a date at all? How did he get to select a date in the first place? And, naturally, how did Cell manage to go further back in time, then?

Ah, and so we come to this. I'll break it down and explain. When Trunks returned to his own present the present he had created continued to progress forward. That's not to say he can't return to a point before he left. It would be the same as any other trip, instead of inserting into the present he would be inserting into the past and creating another new present. This is even mentioned after 16, 17, and 18 are activated and Trunks thinks about going back to destroy them before they are.

Cell managed to go back further because he chose to. (Inadvertantly, sure, but not the point.)

[Olivier Hague]

Er... As we keep talking about this, I get more and more confident that I'm right and that you simply don't get it (sorry, but that is how I feel). I did try to explain this to you a couple of times already, and I really don't know if I could make myself any clearer. So I'll try to keep it short, get to the point, and then leave it at that... Go ahead and call that a "cop-out", Jerseymilk. I tried.

Except that that makes no sense. And it's not a limitation of the time machine, it's simply an impossibility. You can not go to what doesn't exist. If time didn't continue to flow after he left he would appear exactly at the time he left when he returned because there's nothing after it.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any kind of sense. Trunks' timeline had not future yet? How the hell did Cell manage to get in that time machine and into the past if the future where he killed Trunks didn't exist yet? Or are you actually arguing that Cell, not Trunks, is the one guy who was living "at the end of times"?
And if "you can't go to what doesn't exist", and Trunks created a new "parallel present" by going into the past to warn the heroes, how could he use the time machine to reappear on the day the Androids first showed up, three years later? Are you arguing that he spent three years in the future in-between his first trip (when he killed Freeza and Cold) and his second one (when he fought against the Androids and Cell alongside the others)? Are you arguing that Trunks was three years older when he showed up for the second time? He didn't really seem any older to me, especially considering spending one year in the Room of Spirit and Time did change him quite a bit, in contrast. He wouldn't change much from 17 to 20, and then suddenly grow up from 20 to 21?

And most (if not all?) fiction works dealing with time travels assume that you can use a time machine to go into the future. That that future does exist. That you're not living "at the end of times", but simply at some point in time, surrounded by past and future events (all possible destinations for your time machine), and slowly making your way forward in your timeline. I don't see any reason to believe "Dragon Ball" is any different.