Question about Cell stealing his time machine.

[desirecampbell]

So the main problem we have is that we don't know how two time travelers can exist in the same timeline?

I'm going to cut you off right there. We do know how two time travelers can exist in the same timeline. We actually see that: Cell and Trunks. In the timeline we see in the series, Cell is already there - then Trunks shows up, then leaves, then shows up again, then leaves. There seem to be no restrictions to how many different time travelers can exist in a single timeline (which makes sense - why would there be restrictions?)

[caejones]

Simple: if each time travel event creates a new timeline, how could a new time travel event that originates on the same timeline as a TTE that creates a timeline at an earlier date enter the timeline created by a TTE that hasn't happened, yet has an earlier branch?

My conclusion is that Trunks created one timeline, but Cell created three. I've tried working this out in a confusing notepad document and I think I'm just going to try to make it in program format.

Trunks already created a timeline when Cell time traveled. There was only one trunks then, and Cell killed him. But there was a timeline where Trunks time traveled, and Cell didn't go there. So did Cell go to a new timeline where Trunks didn't appear, or did he go to one where Trunks would later appear? We know the latter occurs because it happens in the series, but why not the former? My conclusion is that both happen Thomas Young light through slit style, which means that another Trunks and another Cell were created by Cell's single time traveling.
Since Trunks returned from the timeline without Cell, and Cell did stuff in the timeline where both appear, a new home timeline must also be created to occomidate the return or lack there of from the Z timeline, and we see this in the form of Trunks killing Cell.
If Cell returns from the Cell only timeline, a third home timeline would be created, but I doubt that happens. If then there is only one outcome for both Cells, a third home timeline branch isn't necessary.

And if there was a third time traveler, we'd double the number of timelines again, and then add more depending on the changes in return trips. So in this hypothesis, there is no law of conservation of Cell, and there are only two Trunks because Trunks created a new timeline before Cell created one that branched off at an earlier date.

... Yeah, I know what I'm talking about, but it's impossible to explain, therefore it's probably wrong.

[desirecampbell]

Your theory (if I understand it correctly) is almost exactly like mine.

In my theory, timelines aren't discrete, they branch off from each other at the point where the timeline was interrupted (ie: a timejump). Cell creates a new timeline

In my theory, when one timejumps to any point you cause a new timeline to 'branch off' from that point. This new timeline shares the same past as the one it was split from (literally, it is exactly the same timeline) and just creates an exact copy of everything and interjects the 'new element' (ie: a time machine and a Saiyan). In essence, the 'parent branch' acts as if nothing happened and the 'daughter branch' continues on with a 'what if'.

Now, to answer your questions directly:

if each time travel event creates a new timeline, how could a new time travel event that originates on the same timeline as a TTE that creates a timeline at an earlier date enter the timeline created by a TTE that hasn't happened, yet has an earlier branch?

Quick answer: Cell would have split off a new branch from that last timeline Trunks went to, but at the point he traveled to, only one timeline existed (the original one).

Long answer: The reason Cell creates a new timeline that doesn't include all the branches that have split from it is, well, because that's not how time travel works here. If he did then that would mean he'd have to alter those future branches, which (is one of the few things) we know is impossible. Cell branches off a timeline in exactly the same manner that Trunks had four time before: jumps to a specific point and creates a new copy of everything that existed up until that point, and carries on from there in a daughter branch.

And when Trunks (from that new, Cell-created, timeline) goes back in time he creates a new Cell because that's how time travel works. It does the same thing, every time.

So did Cell go to a new timeline where Trunks didn't appear, or did he go to one where Trunks would later appear? We know the latter occurs because it happens in the series, but why not the former?

Because each timejump creates a new timeline, he can't create a new branch that Trunks will time travel into (except a Trunks from that timeline, on his first jump). As I said above, Cell can't create a timeline where the Trunks he killed timejumps in - he only creates a new timeline that is an exact copy of the moment he jumped into. The new timeline doesn't include any of the branches of the 'parent branch' because if it did, it would imply atht he is changing the future of those branches - which is impossible.

Trunks and another Cell were created by Cell's single time traveling.

Cell's timejump can't create a new copy of himself. It can't. It doesn't make any sense. He kind of creates a new Trunks, but only in that he creates a new timeline where Trunks will be born (just like Trunks did on his first jump).

[Xyex]

I don't know about "logical", really... It allows paradoxes, for one thing.

How, exactly, does it allow for paradoxes? You obviously didn't get what I was saying so I'll explain a bit more.

You only create a new time-line when you enter a time-line you are not part of. By going back in time the first time you cause the time-line to diverge to allow the existance of one where you do not appear and to allow the existance of the time-line were you are there.

So, you go back in time to a point were you did not exist (as such as you exist now) and cause a new time-line to form as the existing one 'rejects' your presence in it. Simple enough, and the one thing most of us seem to agree on.

Then, you go home. Later, you go back and re-enter the time-line you created before. Because you created this time-line it doesn't 'reject' your presence and force you off into another time-line. It just lets you in, just as your own time-line does upon returning home.

Right, you go home and are accepted back into your own time-line because that is where you are from and there is no contradiction to your return. Again, simple. Then you go back in time again, to the time-line you previously created, and appear within that time-line because there is no contradiction to your return since you're a part of that time-line. Again, simple.

I don't see where you get a paradox from any of that. Unless you're not paying attention and think someone can travel freely through a time-line they made, even going back further than a previous return trip. That, obviously, falls under the first type of travel. You didn't exist, as you do now, at a previous point than your last appearance.

This falls into place with what Trunks said to Gohan. He'd already appeared again and was there. To travel back again, even appearing during a peroid where he was already there, would simply cause another divergence, not insert him into the same time-line again.

[caejones]

I tried to make a simple simulation... thing to get my point across, but either I'm not patient enough or not smart enough to finish it.
Basically, why were there two Trunks if Cell arrived in the Z-timeline before Trunks? Why didn't Cell create a new timeline where he appeared, but Trunks didn't? My explanation for the first question is that even though Trunks appeared in the past after Cell, Trunks left the future before Cell, so Cell had to create two Trunks so that the one he got his time machine from could still exist, but he could still affect the events that would happen without contradicting our "future is static" rule. But that hardly answers the second question, and it would seem to me that since he's appearing at the earliest branch, the only way to explain him just creating a Trunks-free future would be to say that we had the wave-duality effect (which of course isn't a good analogy since the only "barier" we have is whether Trunks appears or not).

So ya, I don't know if there was any point to my post. I'm surprised at how many times I've written this down today without coming up with an explanation I'm satisfied with.

[edit] Rereading, it seems I completely missed the point of your post, Desirecampbell. I need to learn to think more before posting. Off to notepad...[/edit]
[edit2] Ah, so, are we saying that Cell did enter a Trunks-free timeline, and then the Trunks from that timeline's future went back to create the Z-timeline? That'd simplify the HFiL out of things, if not for the fact that it requires that Cell somehow failed miserably to absorb the androids despite everyone else being owned... though I'm not confident that's what you're saying, so I'll shut up for now. [/edit2]

[Olivier Hague]

How, exactly, does it allow for paradoxes? You obviously didn't get what I was saying

I believe I did. Except maybe for the whole...

you go back in time to a point were you did not exist (as such as you exist now)

... thing.
"Not as such as you exist now"? What's that supposed to mean, anyway? ^^;


We're in 2007. You decide to go back in 1950. You create a new timeline, right?
You go back to 2007 and whatever. And then you make another trip, this time back to 1952. You end up in the same timeline you created the last time around, according to your theory, right?
Now, let's say you go back, etc, and make a third trip, this time back in 1951. Logically, you should still end up in the same timeline you created the first time around. But what is there to stop you from waiting for "yourself" in 1952? And from there/then on, all sorts of paradoxes are possible.

[desirecampbell]

Right, you go home and are accepted back into your own time-line because that is where you are from and there is no contradiction to your return. Again, simple. Then you go back in time again, to the time-line you previously created, and appear within that time-line because there is no contradiction to your return since you're a part of that time-line. Again, simple.

Actually, wouldn't that be exactly the same as when you went back in time? I'm sorry, I just don't see the difference between 'timejumping to a point where you aren't born yet' and 'timejumping to a point where you are born' and 'timejumping to a point where you aren't there anymore'. The first two create new timelines, but the last one doesn't? Why?

Basically, why were there two Trunks if Cell arrived in the Z-timeline before Trunks? Why didn't Cell create a new timeline where he appeared, but Trunks didn't?

They both did, actually. Trunks created a new timeline (and then three more, but the changes are so insignificant that we can visualize it as one new one and the original) and then Cell created a new one that branches off before Trunks' new timeline. Cell's new timeline continues, ignorant of the happenings of the other two (or five, whatever) and the Trunks native to that timeline goes back in time just like the first Trunks did. The only difference is that in all these new timelines there's a Cell in the ground.

[edit2] Ah, so, are we saying that Cell did enter a Trunks-free timeline, and then the Trunks from that timeline's future went back to create the Z-timeline? That'd simplify the HFiL out of things, if not for the fact that it requires that Cell somehow failed miserably to absorb the androids despite everyone else being owned... though I'm not confident that's what you're saying, so I'll shut up for now. [/edit2]

Heh. Yeah. Somehow Cell fails to absorb (or even get noticed by Trunks) in that timeline. *shrug* I can think of a few explanations, but there's no evidence as to what happened, so I don't venture.

[Xyex]

"Not as such as you exist now"? What's that supposed to mean, anyway? ^^;

"Such as you exist now" is merely a way of saying 'the you that went back in time' is not the same as the you that is in the past (if there is such a you at the point you're going to) and not the you that that time peroid accepts as belonging there.

We're in 2007. You decide to go back in 1950. You create a new timeline, right?
You go back to 2007 and whatever. And then you make another trip, this time back to 1952. You end up in the same timeline you created the last time around, according to your theory, right?
Now, let's say you go back, etc, and make a third trip, this time back in 1951. Logically, you should still end up in the same timeline you created the first time around. But what is there to stop you from waiting for "yourself" in 1952? And from there/then on, all sorts of paradoxes are possible.

Um, I just explained that in my last post. By making the 2nd trip back you have established a span of time where you aren't there. Such as in your example of not being there from 1950 to 1952. Thus, appearing between that peroid, or during a peroid where are are already in the past, causes a split. I mean, really, this is pretty simple stuff...

[desirecampbell]

So, it's just when you go back in time that you create a new timeline? Why? Why is that any different from a timejump to the future?

Basically, I'm calling shenanigans on that because of the inconsistency. True, if I drop a rock in a river it may, or may not, split the river in two - but it always changes the river in some way. Every time.

[Olivier Hague]

"Not as such as you exist now"? What's that supposed to mean, anyway? ^^;

"Such as you exist now" is merely a way of saying 'the you that went back in time' is not the same as the you that is in the past (if there is such a you at the point you're going to) and not the you that that time peroid accepts as belonging there.

But any time travel ends up in a time period where there wasn't already a "you such as you exist now". Either there's no "you" at all, or there's a different version of you.

We're in 2007. You decide to go back in 1950. You create a new timeline, right?
You go back to 2007 and whatever. And then you make another trip, this time back to 1952. You end up in the same timeline you created the last time around, according to your theory, right?
Now, let's say you go back, etc, and make a third trip, this time back in 1951. Logically, you should still end up in the same timeline you created the first time around. But what is there to stop you from waiting for "yourself" in 1952? And from there/then on, all sorts of paradoxes are possible.

Um, I just explained that in my last post. By making the 2nd trip back you have established a span of time where you aren't there. Such as in your example of not being there from 1950 to 1952. Thus, appearing between that peroid, or during a peroid where are are already in the past, causes a split. I mean, really, this is pretty simple stuff...

Simplistic, even... I'm sorry, but I really think your ideas on time travel don't make much sense... ^^;

You're saying that the third trip would create a new timeline because of the "span of time from 1950 to 1952 where you're not there" (that's assuming you didn't spend years in the past the first time around, you'll note)...
But if you go there, it would be the same thing for the second trip. There was a span of time from 1950 to your year of birth (or beyond, if you changed history to the extent that you won't be born in that timeline anymore) where you didn't exist.

[Xyex]

So, it's just when you go back in time that you create a new timeline? Why? Why is that any different from a timejump to the future?

Basically, I'm calling shenanigans on that because of the inconsistency. True, if I drop a rock in a river it may, or may not, split the river in two - but it always changes the river in some way. Every time.

But why would the time-line split going into the future? The only reason it splits when going into the past is because the past has already occured in a set fashion and it needs to split in order to prevent a pardox. The future, however, has not occured yet. The exception to this being Trunks' return after the Cell Games since he's altering the events that originally occured prior to Cell going back in time, thus altering the past.

But any time travel ends up in a time period where there wasn't already a "you such as you exist now". Either there's no "you" at all, or there's a different version of you.

No. The first trip will cause that. By subsequent trips, returning to the same split time-line you created the first time (so long as the time of return is after the time of depature) has you returning to a time-line that already has you 'recorded' as belonging there.

Yes, you're going to change between the time you left and the time you return, but you're consantly changing in your own time too and that doesn't cause it to split every nano second. Changes that occur to you between departure and return are simply recognized as such. It's when you try to be somewhere you weren't that causes problems.

Simplistic, even... I'm sorry, but I really think your ideas on time travel don't make much sense... ^^;

It makes perfect sense.

You're saying that the third trip would create a new timeline because of the "span of time from 1950 to 1952 where you're not there" (that's assuming you didn't spend years in the past the first time around, you'll note)...
But if you go there, it would be the same thing for the second trip. There was a span of time from 1950 to your year of birth (or beyond, if you changed history to the extent that you won't be born in that timeline anymore) where you didn't exist.

See, now you're just trying to find holes so you can ignore it and go back to your own (rather flawed) theory. And in doing so you're making absolutely no sense.

[Olivier Hague]

I give up...

[desirecampbell]

Xyex, your theory is flawed. You say you create a new timeline when you go back in time because it's "already occurred", right? Then, by that logic, all timejumps create new timelines, because before you can timejump to a specific point in time it has to exist, and thus, must have "already occurred".


And your theory about Trunks creating a new timeline when going back to the future after the Cell games is categorically flawed. You use this exception because you theorize that Trunks went back in time, back home, back in time, back home, then is killed by Cell who then goes back in time - and then he goes through the same timeline without splitting off a new one. But that would mean he's changing his own timeline - which is impossible. It's one of the few things we know is impossible.

Your theory contradicts itself, and follows little or no logic.

[Xyex]

Xyex, your theory is flawed. You say you create a new timeline when you go back in time because it's "already occurred", right? Then, by that logic, all timejumps create new timelines, because before you can timejump to a specific point in time it has to exist, and thus, must have "already occurred".

You don't have to appear at a point that's already occured, you can show up as it's occuring. But even so, as Trunks is supposed to be in that time-line he isn't interfering with it. Him showing up has the same effect as you deciding to wear a blue shirt instead of black. None.

And your theory about Trunks creating a new timeline when going back to the future after the Cell games is categorically flawed. You use this exception because you theorize that Trunks went back in time, back home, back in time, back home, then is killed by Cell who then goes back in time - and then he goes through the same timeline without splitting off a new one. But that would mean he's changing his own timeline - which is impossible. It's one of the few things we know is impossible.

What? I don't know where you got that idea from. If that's what I thought I would think there are three time-lines, not four. There's the original, the one Trunks made without Cell, the one Cell created when he went back, and then the one Trunks made when trying to return home. Cell didn't 'go through' the same time-line as Trunks. He split the time-line Trunks had already created.

Your theory contradicts itself, and follows little or no logic.

Well, it certainly follows more logic and has less contradictions than having dozens of random time-lines, including one where Cell randomly decided to become a weatherman or sleep his entire life or some other random thing just to create a second, identicle time-line for the sole purpose of making something simple complicated.

[desirecampbell]

Again, you're trying to introduce this idea of 'he didn't change the timeline enough to split the timeline'. It makes absolutely no sense.

And then there's this "he's supposed to be there". What do you mean he's supposed to be there? That's ridiculous.

Well, it certainly follows more logic and has less contradictions than having dozens of random time-lines, including one where Cell randomly decided to become a weatherman or sleep his entire life or some other random thing just to create a second, identicle time-line for the sole purpose of making something simple complicated.

No, my timeline has absolutely no contradictions. Nothing happens one way once, and then doesn't happen subsequent times (like selectively creating timelines). I don't explain why Cell doesn't appear in that timeline, I just say he doesn't. There are plenty of explanations as to why he wouldn't, but I don't go into that because there's no way to verify it.


Maybe I just missed something. Could you explain, fully, what your theory entails, and what you think the sequence of events were? Or, at the very least, point out any problems you see in mine.

[caejones]

I think we can explain Cell disappearing in the "Trunks that kills imperfect Cell and ends the cycle" timeline with another question: where was #16 in that timeline?

Actually, this "overlapping timeperiods" thing is probably the reason I gave up on making a timeline program... . It seems that if multiple timetravelers, even if they are the same person from a different timeperiod, time travel to related periods, there would have to be a variety of splits to compensate for "who timetraveled first" compared to "who arrived in the past when".

I think the reason the future doesn't split on return trips is because there is only a return trip because of the exit trip, so the return of the timetraveler to the home timeline shouldn't make a split because it was either going to happen or not going to happen... nothing to split for, otherwise you should have three branches from one departure: the departure happens and return doesn't, the departure and return happen, or neither happens... but since only one of those actually happens, no branching should happen.

... *wonders why is trying to interject random sentences when is the noob in the discussion*

[Xyex]

Again, you're trying to introduce this idea of 'he didn't change the timeline enough to split the timeline'. It makes absolutely no sense.

Actually, no. I've moved away from 'forking' time-lines to 'dividing' time-lines. Effectively meaning that the entire thing splits, there's no 'point of intersection'. Which means it's possible to go into the past of the time-line Trunks made, before he first appeared in it. Cell appeared in the past of the Time-line Trunks made and caused it to split. Since Cell's presence can't affect the appearance of Trunks he still shows up just as he had when Cell wasn't there.

And then there's this "he's supposed to be there". What do you mean he's supposed to be there? That's ridiculous.

Oh? So you're not supposed to be in this time-line?

No, my timeline has absolutely no contradictions. Nothing happens one way once, and then doesn't happen subsequent times (like selectively creating timelines). I don't explain why Cell doesn't appear in that timeline, I just say he doesn't. There are plenty of explanations as to why he wouldn't, but I don't go into that because there's no way to verify it.

Maybe I just missed something. Could you explain, fully, what your theory entails, and what you think the sequence of events were? Or, at the very least, point out any problems you see in mine.

Time-line 1) Trunks goes back in time causing the time-line to divide creating Time-line 2. Trunks returns for a time, then goes back to Time-line 2 again. Returns. Is killed by Cell. Cell then goes back into the past of time-line 2 causing it to divide into time-line 3.

Time-line 2) Unseen time-line where Cell didn't appear but Trunks did. They stop the Androids somehow and Trunks goes home only to be killed by Cell.

Time-line 3) Series time-line created by Cell.

Time-line 4) Alternate future split from time-line 1 when the 'extra' Trunks from time-line 3 attempted to return home. He and the 'original' tried to appear at the same place at the same time and to compensate the time-line divided.

And my two biggest issues with your time-lines are the 'lazy Cell' and the unnecessary complexity created from having a bunch of pointless extra time-lines.

[caejones]

The only pseudo problem I can see in that is... why did Trunks appear in the CEll-created timeline at all? why didn't Cell create a timeline that was the same as the one he came from up to his appearance there? I mean, the four timelines we have make sense ... but why isn't there a "cell but no Trunks" timeline?

[Terra-jin]

That's one of the rules of Dragonball-style time travel. Jumps to the past all go to latest created timeline, instead of going to the past of the timeline where they come from.
Example: when Trunks goes back the second time, he travels to the year 768 (if I'm correct). However, he doesn't end up in the year 768 of his own timeline; the Z-warriors there weren't warned by Trunks. Instead, he enters the timeline he already created, where the Z-tachi had prepared.
So, when Cell travels back, he, too, enters that timeline. This timeline included Trunks appearing in 765. By traveling back before Trunks arrived (the year 764), he altered this timeline.

However, in Dragonball, timelines do not vanish when they're altered; they're preserved. So, the old past still exists where Cell didn't appear. This is what is commonly known as the hidden timeline.

[desirecampbell]

Okay, let's see if I understand your theory: Trunks goes back in time and creates a new timeline. Then he goes home, back in time again, and then back home - without creating new timelines. He flits between timeline one and two, but only creates a new timeline the first time (which is utterly ridiculous, but that's not the biggest problem).

Then he's killed by Cell who then goes back in time creating a third timeline (again, why does this jump create a timeline, but not the last three?)

Now, here's where it gets really confusing. Apparently a Future Trunks appears in this timeline too. Where does he come from? If he's native to this timeline, then Cell must have been "lazy" here too (and, as well, this would mean he's changing his own timeline, which is impossible). If not, the only other option is timeline one - which is impossible.

After that That Trunks goes back to his home timeline (wherever that is), then back to the timeline three again (all without creating new timelines, I might add) and then goes back to timeline one (apparently that's where he was from) and splits off another timeline because "there's already a Trunks there". Disregarding the fact that there was a Trunks present in his second trip to the past, Trunks went back to the future twice to points where there should have "already been a Trunks". Why didn't he create a new timeline that first time?


So. What the fuck is going on?

The only pseudo problem I can see in that is... why did Trunks appear in the CEll-created timeline at all? why didn't Cell create a timeline that was the same as the one he came from up to his appearance there? I mean, the four timelines we have make sense ... but why isn't there a "cell but no Trunks" timeline?

The Trunks that appears in the new Cell created timeline can't be the same Trunks that Cell kills. When Cell (or anyone else) goes back in time he creates a new timeline that shares the past with the timeline it splits from and then branches off from there. Thus, Cell traveling to a point in the past, further back than Trunks went causes a new timeline to be created free from that Trunks' timejumping. Thinking about what we know about time travel for more than two seconds makes this obvious. Cell has to create a new timeline that the previous Trunks doesn't travel too. If Trunks did jump to that new timeline, that would change the history of the two existing timelines which we know is impossible. The Trunks that Cell fights in the Cell games is born in the timeline he creates. This new Trunks goes through all the same motions that the other Trunks did, just centered around this timeline instead.

There actually are some 'Cell but no Trunks' timelines, but they're just the 'leftover' ones that Trunks leaves from (and thus, can't get back into because timejumps make new timelines). We don't talk about them much, because nothing important happens there - in fact, simply ignoring these superfluous timelines whittles the number of timelines down from ten, to four.