When the hell did Tapion go to?

[Olivier Hague]

Well if the initial question was answered, anything after would be off-topic

Heh. I guess that's true, technically. ^^;
But please don't tell me I really wasted my time with that time travel thing... That was still relevant to "Dragon Ball"... ^^;

even reminding someone of their remarks.

Even said remarks in the first place. Please don't forget that.

[Xyex]

I feel the exact same way, you know?

I've been getting that feeling.

(except I'm right, naturally ;þ)

Only in your mind.

Remove the "eventually", and we may get somewhere.
I'm saying that Trunks could already be part of somebody's past himself. Just like 2007 Gokû is part of 2027 Trunks' past and can't possibly know that.
Now, if Trunks knows that there are people who actually exists in his past, he should also suspect that the same could very well be true for him. He has absolutely no evidence saying otherwise, and no reason to believe he should be any different, "special".

Agreed, they can't know that because if you're truely in the past you're not occuring at the moment and can't know anything. I'll explain this a little more with a reply to another part in a minute...

Then, let's consider the theory I just mentioned about an infinity of timelines. If there's an infinity of timeline, there's a timeline where Trunks appears in a time machine and kills Freza and Cold. It already existed, and Trunks simply went there. He didn't actually create it. He "discovered" it.
Now, I realize that sort of thinking simply doesn't mesh with your theory, and I pointed out as much. Still there?

But that doesn't mesh with the typical 'infinite possibilities' futures you normally see. Even in *those* time travellers are seen as interlopers and interferers. Again, I'll get on this a bit more a little further down.

No, it's not. Unless you put yourself in the perpective of somebody who does live in the past. And in which case that wouldn't quite be the past anymore.
You really can't grasp that, can you? ^^;;

No, no, no, no. That's what I've been saying. If you go into the past then you are not actually in the past anymore. That is now the present, or rather, a present, since it's the 'head' of it's own timeline. You're the one not grasping here. XD What I'm saying is you can't *experience* the past, or have a perspective from the past, because to do so requires going back in time and creating a new present that doesn't have a future yet. Make sense now?

You kinda have it backwards...
In order for past events to "flow", to "be occuring", you have to project yourself in that part of the timeline and experience them, live through them. In which case, you can't really call that the "past" anymore, since you're now experiencing it.

EXACTLY what I've been saying!

There is when you have no set future, while other (past) people who are also convinced they're living in the present (and they are, from their perspective) do.
How can you tell you're not like them? If they'd be wrong in assuming they have no set future "because they're living in the present", how can you assume you know better? How can you tell that you are really in the real present and that you really have no set future? For real? Based on what?

Except they're not convinced of anything. See, this is where your theroy has a major stumbling point. In order to 'be convinced' of something you need to be experiencing things. Thinking things. Living things. Which we've both agreed isn't happening.

Look at it this way. You have the 'head of time' flowing 'forward' as it were. This is the present. Behind that you have the 'echo of time' marking the trail of history of all the present's that have occured in all of time. These 'echoes' have already occured and are now, no longer, occuring.

When someone goes back in time and enters into one of these 'echoes' that disrupts the echo and causes the timeline to divide creating a new present in which the disruption can play out via a new present.

As for how you can tell you're in the 'really real present', that simple. It's actually *occuring*. If you think, right now, that you're in the present and there is no future ahead of you you're right. Then, after that instant has past, its merely and echo. And, while that instant now has an existant future you wern't wrong because that instant isn't occuring anymore for you to actually think that.

I know, it's kind of confusing, but hell, we're dealing with time travel. If the natural world around us can be as confusing and complicated as it is just imagine what time is like?

Why would Gokû think he's not living in the present, from his own perspective?

Because the Goku of the past isn't thinking anything since he isn't occuring.

Erk. Why? What would the difference be, here? What would be impossible? Setting your perspective to, say, "French revolution"? With a time machine, that would be possible.

Because you'd be in the present then, not the past. A present without a future.

What the hell would a "real" "alternate possibility of an existing timeline" (so, within the same timeline, if I follow you?) be, then?
How would that work? In the end, you'll only get one result within that timeline, no matter what. So that "alternate possibility" never actually came to exist, except maybe in one's mind.
So what are you talking about? Concretely?

A timeline is a self contained thing. For it to fit the definition of 'infinite possible futures at any one moment' the course of time itself cannot be predetermined. Timelines with predetermined futures, even ones that can be split by a time traveller, can not be said to have infinite possible futures. Why? Because that time traveller is an outside force, not an internal one. And because whatever timeline they'd make would instantly have its entire future decided, with no choice as to where it could go.

I'd say it does, actually. I think the world of "Dragon Ball" consists of several (possibly an infinity, it doesn't really matter as only a few of them are explored in the series) of timelines, and I think each of these timelines, taken separately, has its own predetermined future.
That's the way I see things.
Of course, you disagree, since you have your own (apparently very personal) theory, but hey.

Well of course, if you look at a choose your own adventure book and follow only a single set of options the story looks predetermined. But that's only because you're limiting your perspective.

It's actually pretty simple, at its core. Don't let the "infinity" stuff fool you. ^^;

Anytime infinity gets involved the complexity multiples exponentially.

Far from it, since yours involves timelines that actually "grow" (???) at different speeds (and what's the referential for that speed of growth, anyway? is there an über-time?).

Maybe time likes to stay even? So when a new present is made it goes forward at a rate faster than the original had in order to 'catch up' for some reason of universal law. In which case two years pass for every month, or maybe a year passes for every day, until the two presents are in sync.

Oh, I see. So you'd go into the past and have some fun (killing your grandfather and whatnot) in order to allow your future to "grow" in the meantime, and then go there... Of course, that would be pointless unless time does flow at different speeds depending on the timeline. Otherwise, it would take you 20 years to go 20 years in the future.... and even I can do that (hopefully). ^_^;
But I'm afraid your theory is still based on the borderline-solipsistic assumption that you "naturally" exist at the end of times in the first place... ^^;

No, no. I should have been more specific, I see. In order to go backwards in time you must 'exit' its influence first. I.E., pass outside the normal flow of time. When outside of time the normal rules of time don't exactly apply. It's possible to remain outside of time for what only feels a moment and to allow for thousands of years to pass.

There we go... I think that's everything.

[Olivier Hague]

Then, let's consider the theory I just mentioned about an infinity of timelines. If there's an infinity of timeline, there's a timeline where Trunks appears in a time machine and kills Freza and Cold. It already existed, and Trunks simply went there. He didn't actually create it. He "discovered" it.
Now, I realize that sort of thinking simply doesn't mesh with your theory, and I pointed out as much. Still there?

But that doesn't mesh with the typical 'infinite possibilities' futures you normally see. Even in *those* time travellers are seen as interlopers and interferers.

Well, it could apply in most of these stories... but obviously, if the author decides to go that way and blatantly says that his time travellers aren't really creating these new timelines, that they're not really "changing things themselves", it makes the whole thing a lot less dramatic all of a sudden.

No, no, no, no. That's what I've been saying. If you go into the past then you are not actually in the past anymore. That is now the present, or rather, a present, since it's the 'head' of it's own timeline.

Well, we pretty much agree... up until you said "since it's the 'head' of it's own timeline." ^^;;

What I'm saying is you can't *experience* the past, or have a perspective from the past, because to do so requires going back in time and creating a new present that doesn't have a future yet. Make sense now?

Yeeeeah, I think so... but I disagree anyway! (plot-twist!)
What if you could experience the past as a mere spectator? Let's say you're... well, some kind of god on your little cloud. Since you're not interfering with the timeline, you're not creating a new one. Ta-daaa!

You kinda have it backwards...
In order for past events to "flow", to "be occuring", you have to project yourself in that part of the timeline and experience them, live through them. In which case, you can't really call that the "past" anymore, since you're now experiencing it.

EXACTLY what I've been saying!

... except backwards. ^^;
But let's say we finally understand each other about that!

There is when you have no set future, while other (past) people who are also convinced they're living in the present (and they are, from their perspective) do.
How can you tell you're not like them? If they'd be wrong in assuming they have no set future "because they're living in the present", how can you assume you know better? How can you tell that you are really in the real present and that you really have no set future? For real? Based on what?

Except they're not convinced of anything. See, this is where your theroy has a major stumbling point. In order to 'be convinced' of something you need to be experiencing things. Thinking things. Living things. Which we've both agreed isn't happening.

*gasp*
Well, I guess we don't agree after all, then.

Yes, it is happening. For them. From their perspective. They can think. They can make theories. They can have convictions. They're living in the present, as far as they're concerned.
They don't become zombies just because they're in the past. Sure, they "will" only do and think what they're "supposed" to do and think, i.e. what they already did and thought, from our point of view. But that's just because determinism is a bitch. :þ

Look at it this way. You have the 'head of time' flowing 'forward' as it were. This is the present.

Again, that's assuming you're in the "real" present (the one that's not in the past of anybody else, the one that's at the end of times, in your theory). And you can't know that for sure.

Behind that you have the 'echo of time' marking the trail of history of all the present's that have occured in all of time. These 'echoes' have already occured and are now, no longer, occuring.

Well, no, they're no longer occuring... But in "Dragon Ball" (don't ask me about the real world), you can get there. It's an actual "place" that exists somewhere in time.
And once you're there, the past becomes the present, as far as you're concerned, and they are occuring again (well, if you're a god on a cloud... otherwise, you're interfering and thus in a different timeline, agreed).

As for how you can tell you're in the 'really real present', that simple. It's actually *occuring*. If you think, right now, that you're in the present and there is no future ahead of you you're right.

Wrong, sorry. Past people would experience the exact same thing, from their perspective.

Why would Gokû think he's not living in the present, from his own perspective?

Because the Goku of the past isn't thinking anything since he isn't occuring.

Again, people of the past aren't zombies. They may look like they are from our perspective, but from theirs, they're simply living. Just like we are. Exactly like we are, actually, if we're in a determinist universe (I'm afraid free will is just a very convincing illusion, according to determinism).

What the hell would a "real" "alternate possibility of an existing timeline" (so, within the same timeline, if I follow you?) be, then?
How would that work? In the end, you'll only get one result within that timeline, no matter what. So that "alternate possibility" never actually came to exist, except maybe in one's mind.
So what are you talking about? Concretely?

A timeline is a self contained thing. For it to fit the definition of 'infinite possible futures at any one moment' the course of time itself cannot be predetermined.

So your timeline would pretty much be the opposite of determinist (if there's such a thing). ^_^;

Timelines with predetermined futures, even ones that can be split by a time traveller, can not be said to have infinite possible futures.

Well, no. Taken separately, they can't be said to have infinite possible futures, by definition. Since they're predetermined.

whatever timeline they'd make would instantly have its entire future decided, with no choice as to where it could go.

Yeah, but I was talking about avoiding a fatalistic story, here. Not a fatalistic timeline. Yes, all these timelines would be predetermined, indeed.
But by allowing your time-traveller to jump from one timeline to another, you allow him to escape futures he doesn't like.
(of course, that would still be an illusion of free will, technically, since each and every of his travels would be predetermined as well... determinism really is a bitch... but in the context of the story, it would still feel like he's on top of things ;þ)

Well of course, if you look at a choose your own adventure book and follow only a single set of options the story looks predetermined. But that's only because you're limiting your perspective.

I'm afraid the universe takes care of that for me.
I mean... As much as I'd like to toss a coin and get both tails and heads, that won't happen, even if I try to keep an open mind.

It's actually pretty simple, at its core. Don't let the "infinity" stuff fool you. ^^;

Anytime infinity gets involved the complexity multiples exponentially.

Nah... It would if you really needed to keep track of every single cause and effect to understand the principle of the theory. But you don't. You just need to know the basic idea that's behind it.
In other words, you just need to know that there's an infinity of timelines, you don't have to actually count them.
That's why that theory exists and is used by mere humans, actually. ^^

Maybe time likes to stay even? So when a new present is made it goes forward at a rate faster than the original had in order to 'catch up' for some reason of universal law.

Yeah, "maybe", "for some reason". ^_^;

In which case two years pass for every month, or maybe a year passes for every day, until the two presents are in sync.

And how long "should" it take before they're in sync? Is a year "reasonable"? Or a millennium?
And what happens then? Does time actually slow down (or accelerate, depending) in order to stay in sync? Can it do that? Didn't you say it was constant?
That's a lot of shots in the dark...

In order to go backwards in time you must 'exit' its influence first. I.E., pass outside the normal flow of time. When outside of time the normal rules of time don't exactly apply. It's possible to remain outside of time for what only feels a moment and to allow for thousands of years to pass.

What, just because you say it is? ^^;

[Godo]

I think Xyex has some pretty good points there, and they are not hard to understand at all.

Of course you do.

But still I haven't read your theories yet, hence that I didn't comment them. So there is no need of the comment "Of course you do" here nor do you have any proof of that I obviously would like Xyex theories at the very start.

[Xyex]

What if you could experience the past as a mere spectator? Let's say you're... well, some kind of god on your little cloud. Since you're not interfering with the timeline, you're not creating a new one. Ta-daaa!

Ah, now this is something I can answer simply and easily. The Time-viewer Principle. It goes like this. Say you built a device. A device that is able to look backwards in time at any given moment. With this device you can look at all of time laid out before you as though it were a movie reel, and really, that's what it is. By 'stepping up' through time you can watch history unfold.

Since you are only an observer you can not affect the course of events, but you can see them. Does this then mean that the past is occuring right now? No, of course not. If you put a movie into the VCR and watch it, does that mean that Luke Skywalker is fighting Darth Vader right now? No. You are watching him fight him as he did years ago, but it's not acutally happening. It's the same thing.

Yes, it is happening. For them. From their perspective. They can think. They can make theories. They can have convictions. They're living in the present, as far as they're concerned.

But that's the thing, they are aren't concerned because it isn't happening. We'll go to the movie concept again, but a step further than that. Each 'insant' of time is a snapshot. A single, solid, frozen moment of history. Nothing is happening, nothing is occuring. Only if you, as an observer, move yourself forward through time do the events happen, and then only as an illusion to your senses.

Again, that's assuming you're in the "real" present (the one that's not in the past of anybody else, the one that's at the end of times, in your theory). And you can't know that for sure.

You can, since only those in the present can think/act because only those in the present exist. The past is merely an echo, nothing more.

Well, no, they're no longer occuring... But in "Dragon Ball" (don't ask me about the real world), you can get there. It's an actual "place" that exists somewhere in time.
And once you're there, the past becomes the present, as far as you're concerned, and they are occuring again (well, if you're a god on a cloud... otherwise, you're interfering and thus in a different timeline, agreed).

Just because it exists doesn't mean it's occuring. Let's go with the snapshots again. Let's say you go on a picnic and take a photo of your friends. Then, an hour later, one of your friends drowns in the lake nearby. Now let's say that you have invented a machine that lets you enter that photo and alter the future following that moment in time. That's what timetravel does. It 'inserts you' into a snapshot of the past to change the way things occur.

Wrong, sorry. Past people would experience the exact same thing, from their perspective.

Nope, because, as I've said, they experience nothing. ^_^

I'm afraid the universe takes care of that for me.
I mean... As much as I'd like to toss a coin and get both tails and heads, that won't happen, even if I try to keep an open mind.

Ok, sorry, but I just can not resist quoting one of my all time favorite lines of dialogue. Ever.

Raziel:
You said it yourself, Kain - there are only two sides to your coin.

Kain:
Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times... Suppose one day, it lands on its edge.

Right, that's out of my system now. So on we go!

And how long "should" it take before they're in sync? Is a year "reasonable"? Or a millennium?
And what happens then? Does time actually slow down (or accelerate, depending) in order to stay in sync? Can it do that? Didn't you say it was constant?
That's a lot of shots in the dark...

We're talking about a series with 5 foot tall people that can blow up planets and you want hard physics? For shame. XP

Seriously, though, it's not a hard answer to fathom. And simplier than the one you'd need to come up with to manage your infinite timelines. There's a 'link' between presents. A bond of sorts. It pulls them to match each other in progress. Perhaps slowing the further and speending the latter. Perhaps only slowing the further or only speeding the later.

Do they return to normal afterwards? Do they stay at the new speed? Who knows, who cares, it's not important. In the end, though, the flow of time itself stays stable and constant within itself. It's a bit of hard concept to wrap ones mind around, but so is a lot of other physics.

What, just because you say it is? ^^;

Uh, no, because that's the general concensus. You see a time traveller in a story and they always use some sort of time-space bubble or tunnel. Something that takes them outside of time. Because time, in its consant flow, only lets us go forward. To go backward, or to go faster than it wants us to go, you must step outside of its influence. (Or just travel as fast or faster than it, ala time dilation, but that's another matter.)

Anyway, we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this. You're far too fatalistic to accept a Dynamic or Fluid time theory. Meanwhile I've since come to the conclusion that fatalism is the podium of the uncreative. (No offense meant to you with that, I've had that opinion for a very long time and it wont be changing any time soon. )

[Olivier Hague]

What if you could experience the past as a mere spectator? Let's say you're... well, some kind of god on your little cloud. Since you're not interfering with the timeline, you're not creating a new one. Ta-daaa!

Ah, now this is something I can answer simply and easily. The Time-viewer Principle.

No, I was thinking about actually going there.

Yes, it is happening. For them. From their perspective. They can think. They can make theories. They can have convictions. They're living in the present, as far as they're concerned.

But that's the thing, they are aren't concerned because it isn't happening.

Yes, it is happening, from their perspective.

We'll go to the movie concept again, but a step further than that. Each 'insant' of time is a snapshot. A single, solid, frozen moment of history. Nothing is happening, nothing is occuring.

True. But they would be living through these snapshots. Just like we are, right now.

Again, that's assuming you're in the "real" present (the one that's not in the past of anybody else, the one that's at the end of times, in your theory). And you can't know that for sure.

You can, since only those in the present can think/act because only those in the present exist. The past is merely an echo, nothing more.

It's definitely more than that in "Dragon Ball". Again, it actually exists as a possible destination for the Time Machine. We've seen that.
Sure, the past branched into a new timeline as soon as the Time Machine appeared, but where, in the original timeline, would you say that branching occured?
Trunks went to the past. The past does exist. It's not just an "echo" (not in "Dragon Ball", anyway).

Well, no, they're no longer occuring... But in "Dragon Ball" (don't ask me about the real world), you can get there. It's an actual "place" that exists somewhere in time.
And once you're there, the past becomes the present, as far as you're concerned, and they are occuring again (well, if you're a god on a cloud... otherwise, you're interfering and thus in a different timeline, agreed).

Just because it exists doesn't mean it's occuring.

It is when you're living through it. So from the perspective of the past people, it is occuring. To them, past events aren't individual snapshots, frozen in time. They're ongoing events. They're living just like we are.
You really can't seem to grasp that "perspective" thing... ^^;

Wrong, sorry. Past people would experience the exact same thing, from their perspective.

Nope, because, as I've said, they experience nothing. ^_^

Wrong, because they do, from their perspective.
Times two. Go ahead and top that!

Ok, sorry, but I just can not resist quoting one of my all time favorite lines of dialogue. Ever.

Raziel:
You said it yourself, Kain - there are only two sides to your coin.

Kain:
Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times... Suppose one day, it lands on its edge.

Urgh. ^^;

And how long "should" it take before they're in sync? Is a year "reasonable"? Or a millennium?
And what happens then? Does time actually slow down (or accelerate, depending) in order to stay in sync? Can it do that? Didn't you say it was constant?
That's a lot of shots in the dark...

We're talking about a series with 5 foot tall people that can blow up planets and you want hard physics? For shame. XP

Hey, you're the one who went on about timelines going at different speeds! ^^;

Seriously, though, it's not a hard answer to fathom. And simplier than the one you'd need to come up with to manage your infinite timelines. There's a 'link' between presents. A bond of sorts. It pulls them to match each other in progress. Perhaps slowing the further and speending the latter. Perhaps only slowing the further or only speeding the later.

Again, I wouldn't say that's simpler than the "infinite timelines theory"... It's quite arbitrary, for one thing.

Do they return to normal afterwards? Do they stay at the new speed? Who knows, who cares, it's not important. In the end, though, the flow of time itself stays stable and constant within itself. It's a bit of hard concept to wrap ones mind around, but so is a lot of other physics.

But you're not talking about physics anymore, here, you're just making up a set of arbitrary rules. ^^;

What, just because you say it is? ^^;

Uh, no, because that's the general concensus.

The general consensus is that you can wait outside of time, really? ^_^;
How would that even work? I mean, if there's no time...?

You see a time traveller in a story and they always use some sort of time-space bubble or tunnel.

Well, that's fiction anyway, but OK. ^_^;
Still, they're not literally "out if time", even in your examples. What do these "space-time bubbles" contain, for example? Space-time. ^^;
As for the tunnels... Well, that's the wormhole theory, basically. I believe you'd still be going through space-time, it's just that you'd be taking a shortcut.
Without time, you'd just be... I mean... You couldn't... Well, you couldn't "wait"! ^_^;

Anyway, we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this. You're far too fatalistic to accept a Dynamic or Fluid time theory.

Well, I'm not even sure why you'd want to go there, as we already know Toriyama went with multiple timelines. If multiple futures were possible within the same timeline, he wouldn't need several of them. ^^;

Meanwhile I've since come to the conclusion that fatalism is the podium of the uncreative. (No offense meant to you with that

?
None taken, really. ^^;

And I'd say that determinism actually offers quite a challenge, when creating a story. You have to tie up all the loose ends, and you generally can't afford to let the reader know he's dealing with a determinist world until the very end. It's quite the balancing act.

[Xyex]

I'll keep it short. Last time I'm posting because this really is going nowhere.

No, I was thinking about actually going there.

Being there = present, peroid.

You really can't seem to grasp that "perspective" thing... ^^;

No, I get what you're saying. You just don't get/want to accept what I'm saying. That's the problem.

Well, I'm not even sure why you'd want to go there, as we already know Toriyama went with multiple timelines. If multiple futures were possible within the same timeline, he wouldn't need several of them. ^^;

It's called paradox prevention. You can have infinite possibilities for the FUTURE but once the past is over its done and gone, can't be changed. Thus changing it introduces a new time-line without a future. It's just simple common sense, really.

[Olivier Hague]

No, I was thinking about actually going there.

Being there = present, peroid.

Once you're there, yes.

You really can't seem to grasp that "perspective" thing... ^^;

No, I get what you're saying. You just don't get/want to accept what I'm saying. That's the problem.

Well, yeah. I completely disagree.

It's called paradox prevention. You can have infinite possibilities for the FUTURE

Within the same timeline, I still don't see how.
Ah, yes, if the future isn't predetermined and is still "in the process of writing itself" (i.e. simply not there). And if Trunks happens to live "at the end of times".
Well, that would be awfully convenient. ^_^;

but once the past is over its done and gone, can't be changed.

And if Trunks is in somebody else's past (and he could very well be)...

Yes, this is getting nowhere, and you're definitely not convincing me. ^_^;

[Thanos6]

OK, couple of questions:

1) If Tapion goes back to save his brother, won't there be a second Tapion native to that time? Then what? Will he hang around, or will he leave the two natives and go find somewhen else to live?

2) What does the "Dragonball Forever" timeline chart say that clashes with the Daizenshuu?

[Olivier Hague]

If Tapion goes back to save his brother, won't there be a second Tapion native to that time?

Yeah, logically... But I don't think whoever wrote that movie cared that much about time travel logistics (see the whole deal with the sword).

What does the "Dragonball Forever" timeline chart say that clashes with the Daizenshuu?

Oh, dear... How to answer that when I don't even know how to rationalize the Daizenshû "explanation"? ^^;

Well, the "Dragon Ball Forever" explanation doesn't mention a 4th timeline where the Cell Game begins without Trunks (it has a fully-grown Cell? but why...? how...? oh, the headaches).
Also, it doesn't say where the Trunks who gets killed by Cell came from exactly (the Daizenshû kinda does, but it doesn't quite make sense).

Apart from that, it's fairly similar, overall, I believe. So is the unsatisfyingly vague way they handle the timeline where Cell kills Trunks ("so... yeah, there's also that timeline... but really, it's fairly depressing so we won't bother to explain what it is exactly, nor how it came into being...").

[Thanos6]

Aside from the alternate Perfect Cell (which you could, I suppose, try to explain as "artistic license"), the Daizenshuu does make sense.

First is timeline #3, with alt. Mirai Trunks. He goes back and this splits off timeline #4. He comes back, Cell kills him, takes his time machine, and goes further back. This splits off timeline #2. The Mirai we're then familiar with, from timeline #2, goes back himself, thus splitting off #1, the one we follow through the series, and returns to it later.

[Olivier Hague]

Aside from the alternate Perfect Cell (which you could, I suppose, try to explain as "artistic license")

But what kind of "artistic license" would that be? ^_^;

the Daizenshuu does make sense.

I wouldn't say it does, but let's see...

First is timeline #3, with alt. Mirai Trunks.

So we do agree that would be the "first" (i.e. the original) timeline?
That's one of the things I don't like about their explanation: you couldn't tell, based on their chart. If anything, it makes it look like timeline #3 derived from timeline #2 when it should be the opposite, as far as I can tell.
Heck, it makes it looks like all the other timelines are derived from timeline #1, when it should be the opposite (timeline #1 being the "end result" of all these time travels).

He goes back and this splits off timeline #4.

But the Daizenshû doesn't exactly tell us that. It just shows that a Trunks comes back from both (??) timelines #1 and #4 to timeline #3.
And one has to wonder why Cell was "already" there (in fully grown form, I mean) in both these timelines. Shouldn't the original Trunks from timeline #3 have ended up in a timeline where the only existing Cell was still in the laboratory?

But if you disregard the bit about the Cell Game happening in timeline #4 and the arrow connecting both (again, "??") timelines #1 and #4 to timeline #3, I guess it's OK, indeed.

He comes back, Cell kills him, takes his time machine, and goes further back. This splits off timeline #2.

I'm not sure as what you mean, here. How does that "split off" timeline #2? Those are events from timeline #3, and they create timeline #1 (i.e. the main one we folow in the series).
As far as I can tell, timeline #2 basically is timeline #3 (i.e. the original one) with one change: Trunks came back powerful enough to get rid of the androids without the blueprints and killed Cell instead of getting killed.

[Dayspring]

Aside from the alternate Perfect Cell (which you could, I suppose, try to explain as "artistic license"), the Daizenshuu does make sense.

First is timeline #3, with alt. Mirai Trunks. He goes back and this splits off timeline #4. He comes back, Cell kills him, takes his time machine, and goes further back. This splits off timeline #2. The Mirai we're then familiar with, from timeline #2, goes back himself, thus splitting off #1, the one we follow through the series, and returns to it later.

Ehh....As much I love the 4 timeline explanation, the daizenshuu did screw them up too. Their own diagram proves there should be a minimum of 7 timelines, and logically there should be no Cell Games in Timeline 4.

In regards to TL4's Cell Games:
1) Where did the Future Cell in TL4 come from, and how could he have a perfect form if #17 and #18 were already destroyed (as is stated in TL4)?
2) Why would the results of the Cell Games be unknown if Trunks wasn't there? All that happens is that Gohan wouldn't break his arm trying to save Vegeta, since Vegeta wouldn't have cause to go nuts. This would make it easier for Gohan to win then what we see.

In regards to the lack of timelines:
1) Timeline 2 Trunks travels to the past a total of 3 times.
2) A branch in the diagram shows that Timeline 3 Trunks went into the past 2 times, indicating the same moments as TL2 Trunks.
3) Timeline 3 Cell kills TL3 Trunks before he can go into the past a third time. Cell travels into the past instead.
4) 3 trips + 2 trips + 1 trip + whichever universe is the originating timeline = a total of 7 timelines.

It would have been better had the daizenshuu explained that the 4 timelines in the diagram were merely the ones relevent to the story and that movie 7 took place in TL4 instead of a Cell Games.

[Thanos6]

Olivier: You're right in that the way the diagram is presented doesn't really make sense. But the actual events contained in those diagrams do (aside from the alt. Cell Games).

How does that "split off" timeline #2?

Because he's leaving timeline #3 and going further into the past than when timeline #4 was split off, so it HAS to create another timeline. Since #1 is the end result of all time travel, that leaves #2, where "our" Mirai comes from.

Dayspring: As noted, you're right about the alt. Cell Games. They just make no sense at all. It could be they're just mentioned to give us a frame of reference.

Everything else does work. Notice that after Mirai goes to the past and splits off Timeline #1, he never goes further back into the past, it's always further and further ahead in time. It's possible that Mirai Bulma, only wanting to split off one timeline, installed a "dimensional navigator" that let him keep returning to the same alternate timeline each time. Reed Richards has done something similar.

[Dayspring]

Dayspring: As noted, you're right about the alt. Cell Games. They just make no sense at all. It could be they're just mentioned to give us a frame of reference.

Everything else does work. Notice that after Mirai goes to the past and splits off Timeline #1, he never goes further back into the past, it's always further and further ahead in time. It's possible that Mirai Bulma, only wanting to split off one timeline, installed a "dimensional navigator" that let him keep returning to the same alternate timeline each time. Reed Richards has done something similar.

Trunks explains how timelines get affected in the series, though. To avoid confusion, I won't use the daizenshuu's numbering system for this exmple:

Event 1) Trunks goes back in time and gives Goku the cure, splicing the timeline into two: his own (timeline A) and one where Goku doesn't die (timeline B). Trunks then returns to his time and recharges the machine.

Event 2) He goes back in time to help fight the androids, but this causes a split in timeline B since he can't change it: timeline C is created, in which he is present to help, but timeline B also exists in which he only went back to give Goku the cure.

Event 3) Trunks (TL C) gets the remote, they destroy the androids, and he returns to timeline A. He then gets killed by Cell, who goes back to timeline C, splitting it in half. There now exists a timeline D, which is the manga and anime, as well as a Timeline C where Cell makes no appearence.

Event 4) Cell Games take place in Timeline D and Trunks goes back to his time, creating an alternate future by killing Cell (Timeline E).

Event 5) Timeline E's Trunks goes back to Timeline D, splitting it in half one final time: Timeline D is the manga, in which we don't see Trunks return, and Timeline F is created, in which the events of movie 9 take place.

Conclusion) So using the daizenshuu's diagram, Timeline 1 is Timeline D, Timeline 2 is Timeline E, Timeline 3 is Timeline A, and Timeline 4 is Timeline C. We never see Timeline B, and Movie 9 is Timeline F. If you're wondering where Movie 7 would take place, it would occur in Timeline C prior to Trunks' return to Timeline A.

I think I gave myself brainfreeze... No wonder Toriyama+the Daizenshuu never even tried to explain the timeline discrepencies.

First is timeline #3, with alt. Mirai Trunks.

So we do agree that would be the "first" (i.e. the original) timeline?
That's one of the things I don't like about their explanation: you couldn't tell, based on their chart. If anything, it makes it look like timeline #3 derived from timeline #2 when it should be the opposite, as far as I can tell.
Heck, it makes it looks like all the other timelines are derived from timeline #1, when it should be the opposite (timeline #1 being the "end result" of all these time travels).

It's true. You really can't tell by using the daizenshuu's chart. It makes it seem like there are 4 independent timelines that can affect each other through time travel but not themselves. However, Olivier, I think you're just misreading the branch-bar thingies (the solid bars, not the arrows); they're meant to explain when deviations occur between the timelines, not when one creates a new one.

Personally, I think the daizenshuu just labeled the timelines in order of the reader's exposure to them for simplicity's sake. In other words, they're labeled in order of their appearence (from the reader's POV). First would be the story we read, so the manga is timeline 1. We then learn of Trunks, so his is timeline 2. Despite how Cell arrived 1 year prior to Trunks, his universe is timeline 3 since we only read about him after reading about Trunks. Timeline 4 is learned about last, so it's labeled Timeline 4.

[Thanos6]

That's a very well thought-out theory, I must admit. However, Mirai only says he can't change his timeline; that would lead to paradox. Once he splits off another timeline, he can mess around with that one all he wants as many times as he wants.

IMO, the first time someone timejumps, as long as they never go further into the past, then they don't create anymore timelines.

But then, your opinion is equally valid. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Dayspring]

That's a very well thought-out theory, I must admit. However, Mirai only says he can't change his timeline; that would lead to paradox. Once he splits off another timeline, he can mess around with that one all he wants as many times as he wants.

IMO, the first time someone timejumps, as long as they never go further into the past, then they don't create anymore timelines.

But then, your opinion is equally valid. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Oh, I know. That's my point. What my theory explains is what I think should have happened, not what the daizenshuu explains. (Also, when Gohan (or Krillin) asks if Trunks went back and destroyed them before activation, he says it would create a timeline other than that one and his own.)

The daizenshuu shows Trunks from timeline 2 going into the past to give Goku the cure. This obviously creates timeline 1 since he needs somewhere to go. He returns to his time, recharges the machine, and goes back to help fight. This creates timeline 3. Though illogical, I'd be all for such a "because we say so" explanation for the same reason there are differences in the timeline (presence of #16, etc). However, the branching system of the daizenshuu's explanation implies that Timeline 3 Trunks went to Timeline 4 two times as well. The first trip logically creates timeline 4, but the second should therefore create another timeline as well. Later Cell will travel in time, which should create a sixth timeline, and Trunks will go back after defeating TL2 Cell, creating a seventh timeline.

That's 3 timelines left unaccounted for using the daizenshuu's diagram. All that was required was for them to specify that the other 3 were unimportant to the story. If you try to ignore that mistake, then you would have to interpret the branching system as Timeline 1 creating Timelines 2 and 4, and that Timeline 2 created Timeline 3, as Olivier pointed out. And that just makes no sense at all.

As for your theory, how do you explain the presence of timeline 2 AND 3 then (according to the daizenshuu)? TL3 Trunks goes back in time, creating TL4. Cell goes back further in time, creating TL1. Where does TL2 come from? Going the other way, TL2 Trunks goes back, creating TL1. Where would TL3 and TL4 come from?

[Thanos6]

OK, one of us is missing something and I'm not sure who it is.

I'm saying you only need four timelines, because after the initial timeline split caused by each character's first journey into the past (Mirai, alternate Mirai, Cell) there are no paradoxes to resolve and so no split necessary. The actual diagram of the Daizenshuu, with its really strange branches, is unnecessary.

[Anonymous Friend]

I think DaySpring's on to something there with his theory. I think that whenever someone time travels, according to Trunks theory, they create a new branch. So, then, there's the one where they did not interfere and the one where they did. This applies to both him and Cell and anyone else who uses that time machine.

How many times was the time machine used in the series and movies?

[Conan the SSJ]

Dayspring: As noted, you're right about the alt. Cell Games. They just make no sense at all. It could be they're just mentioned to give us a frame of reference.

Everything else does work. Notice that after Mirai goes to the past and splits off Timeline #1, he never goes further back into the past, it's always further and further ahead in time. It's possible that Mirai Bulma, only wanting to split off one timeline, installed a "dimensional navigator" that let him keep returning to the same alternate timeline each time. Reed Richards has done something similar.

Trunks explains how timelines get affected in the series, though. To avoid confusion, I won't use the daizenshuu's numbering system for this exmple:

Event 1) Trunks goes back in time and gives Goku the cure, splicing the timeline into two: his own (timeline A) and one where Goku doesn't die (timeline B). Trunks then returns to his time and recharges the machine.

Event 2) He goes back in time to help fight the androids, but this causes a split in timeline B since he can't change it: timeline C is created, in which he is present to help, but timeline B also exists in which he only went back to give Goku the cure.

Event 3) Trunks (TL C) gets the remote, they destroy the androids, and he returns to timeline A. He then gets killed by Cell, who goes back to timeline C, splitting it in half. There now exists a timeline D, which is the manga and anime, as well as a Timeline C where Cell makes no appearence.

Event 4) Cell Games take place in Timeline D and Trunks goes back to his time, creating an alternate future by killing Cell (Timeline E).

Event 5) Timeline E's Trunks goes back to Timeline D, splitting it in half one final time: Timeline D is the manga, in which we don't see Trunks return, and Timeline F is created, in which the events of movie 9 take place.

Conclusion) So using the daizenshuu's diagram, Timeline 1 is Timeline D, Timeline 2 is Timeline E, Timeline 3 is Timeline A, and Timeline 4 is Timeline C. We never see Timeline B, and Movie 9 is Timeline F. If you're wondering where Movie 7 would take place, it would occur in Timeline C prior to Trunks' return to Timeline A.

I think I gave myself brainfreeze... No wonder Toriyama+the Daizenshuu never even tried to explain the timeline discrepencies.

Brain-freeze here too. >__>

I don't really know where you get the idea that Trunks created another timeline by traveling to the moment the Androids attack. It's specifically stated that another timeline is created the further back one travels, hence the Cell of Timeline 3 going back further and creating what we know as the anime/manga series. Trunks realistically just went back to the same time as when he beat Freeza and gave Goku the medicine in both Mirai cases. Unless Bulma modified the present time machine to actually go back into the normal time frame's past in movie 13 (like how Goku goes back in time in original DB to meet Mutaito), then that results in a 5th timeline where Minosha is never killed by Hildegarn's lower half. But other than that, it's just like the Daizenshuu says, only 4 timelines.

I think DaySpring's on to something there with his theory. I think that whenever someone time travels, according to Trunks theory, they create a new branch. So, then, there's the one where they did not interfere and the one where they did. This applies to both him and Cell and anyone else who uses that time machine.

How many times was the time machine used in the series and movies?

From how I see it:

Timeline 4:
1) Timeline 3 Trunks' journey to defeat Freeza and King Kold, then gives Goku the heart medicine.
2) Timeline 3 Trunks' journey to help the Z senshi against the Androids. Works out probably exactly as it does in the normal timeframe, except Bulma never gets a call about the second time machine Cell would've never came back in. Soon enough Trunks and the gang used the remote control in Gero's lab designs to deactivate-then-destroy the Androids of this world; with the world now at peace, Goku recovers from his heart disease. From my point of view, the events of DBZ movie 7 (not an alternate Cell Games) then occur and Trunks goes back to his future.

Timeline 1:
1) Timeline 3 Cell comes back around the same point of Namek's destruction.
2) Just as in Timeline 4, the events of Trunks' first journey to the past occur a year later, except now it is the second visit from a Capsule Corp time machine.
3) Trunks comes back to help the Z senshi with the battle against the Androids. Only now, the discovery of the Timeline 3 time machine and Cell's subsequent human hunting changes the course of events as to how Timeline 4 would've turned out. The rest is history as the battle with Cell wages on, Goku dies in an alternate manner (teleporting Cell to Kaio's world as he self-destructs), and Trunks goes back to his own time to take care of business.
4) After defeating his time's #17, #18, and Cell, Trunks goes on one last trip to the past to tell his friends the good news. He stays back long enough to grow his hair back out as Bulma likely repairs his damaged sword, the battle with Bojack happens, and that's that.