T-Timelines?

[desirecampbell]

"I used to think that once. But it's too many time-lines to keep track of. And, beyond that, Trunks belongs in the future time-line. He's already a part of it so his presence wont change it. "

Ahh! No! We can't make rules like that. It's just inconsistency, and inconsistency means 'wrong'. And just beacuse there's "too many to keep track of" doesn't mean it's wrong (hell, I'd venture that more confusing probably makes it right ).

[Akira]

You are making assumptions that you cannot back either. "Oh a timeline with a "lazy Cell" is acceptable" (Not a direct quote) and Bulma modifying the time machine to support your theory, when we have no evidence to that effect are both inconsistencies too.

I don't understand this Timeline catches up or doesn't catch up stuff. There is no further ahead or further behind stuff. When a new timeline is created, it has an identical past to the one it split from, and its future automatically plays out to the furthest extent as well. There is no "History has not been written here yet". The very idea of time travel assumes that everything has happened already but is happening currently at any given point inside of "time".

__________________________________________________________
Timeline A

__________________________________________________________
Timeline B

Any point on either line is the same year in both dimensions. Time flows the same speed in both. I have no idea what you meant by the statement (Again not a direct quote) "They have different end of time points"

Why are you worrying about the end of time anyway? It has nothing to do with figuring out parallel timelines. Granted, I have not presented any theories for awhile now, but I refuse to do so until I have something that is solid. You may feel "Confident" in your current explanation, but it has inconsistencies too. You invited anyone to point them out.

Making stuff up or saying some timelines don't matter or don't have any impact on "Main four" or whatever are where your explanation is flawed. either everything plays out and matters or it doesn't, but you can't just add or take away stuff to support your claim.

You're helping steer things in the right direction. Don't get me wrong, your contributions to this discussion are imensely helpful, but you've far from solved the riddle.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just as some fun side stuff to contend with, what do you guys feel about Movie 7? Everyone always says stuff like "The movies are an alternate universe or seperate." Perhaps it fits into one of the timelines where Cell did not appear? Any ideas?

What about movie 9? Often times accepted as Anime continuity, that is another return trip by Trunks to visit one last time. Does that affect another timeline change?

Dare I even mention Movie 13, the Origins of the sword, and the fact that Tapion leaves in a Time Machine at the end of that movie?

Even if we somehow manage to solve the rest, that stuff is still there to toy around with.

[Xyex]

Ahh! No! We can't make rules like that. It's just inconsistency, and inconsistency means 'wrong'. And just beacuse there's "too many to keep track of" doesn't mean it's wrong (hell, I'd venture that more confusing probably makes it right ).

I'm not changing any rules. The rules are that you can't change the past, only create new time-lines. There is no rule about going back to your own time-line. If everything you did changed the future like that then we'd have a billion new time-lines every second from everyone's actions. Trunks is *part* of that time-line, he belongs there, and he came from the present which means no future exists beyond that point for him, thus his trips back to his own time can't change it (it's not there).

[desirecampbell]

Well, we're ALL making assumptions, and there's not a lot to use to back up anything. All we know is that in one timeline Goku does of a heart virus, androids devestate the Earth, Trunks uses a timemachine to find help, defeats the androids and is killed by the Cell of his time. That Cell returns to the past, and eventually fights Goku and co. along with a Trunks from the future, he hosts the Cell games and is destroyed by SSj2 Gohan. There is another Trunks from a war-torn future who uses the timemachine to get help, meets up with the last timeline (the one with the Cell games) twice before defeating the androids and Cell in his time. We know that time travel (one way or another) creates a separate 'timeline'.

That's all we know. Everything else is based on supposition.

"Oh a timeline with a "lazy Cell" is acceptable" (Not a direct quote) and Bulma modifying the time machine to support your theory, when we have no evidence to that effect are both inconsistencies too.

Well, that's the point. There's no direct evidence for this, but we know that Trunks travels to the same timeline twice, and the only way I can possibly explain that is that the time machine is capable of such a feat. I explained my thinking and restricted it (so it wouldn't seem too fantastical), and I don't think it's beyond the scope of plausability.

I don't understand this Timeline catches up or doesn't catch up stuff.

Eh, it's actually rather muddled. And it's only in place because I restricted the time machine's ability to travel to specific timelines once the time machine had been there (so he wouldn't have the ability durring the first trip there and back). If we assume that Bulma included the ability before Trunks left the first time (so that he could return to his original timeilne) then there's no need for my 'time gos on as time goes on' theory.

But, again, there's nothing stated in DragonBall that says it's NOT like this. And such an explaination does make some sense.

Why are you worrying about the end of time anyway? It has nothing to do with figuring out parallel timelines.

Well, id does in my theory. My theory states that Trunks didn't have the ability to travel to specific timelines until he'd been to at least two different ones (so Bulma could compare data collected in each timeline and create such a function). If a newly created timeline instantly had a future Trunks would 'timejump home' but find himself in the same timeline (well, a new timeline created off the one he just came from) not his 'home' timeline. Without the ability to direct which timeline to travel to he would never get back to his original timeline.

In my theory, because there's an 'end' to time, Trunks cannot 'return' to the future of the timeline he just created (because it doesn't exist yet). So his vessile is forced back to the lst 'branch' of the timeline until such a time exists.

Of course, as I said above, if Bulma somehow included this 'location' technology before his first timejump, then there's no need for such a 'limited' time theory. And while that's not completely unbelieveable, it's seems rather difficult to do without data from another timeline to compare with.

You may feel "Confident" in your current explanation, but it has inconsistencies too. You invited anyone to point them out.

True, and I do appriceate your candor - but, at the same time I was taken aback when you slammed me for 'assumptions'. This is about time travel. Time travel. Everything is assumption. And then that point conflicts with...

The very idea of time travel assumes that everything has happened already but is happening currently at any given point inside of "time".

Your idea of time travel. Not "the". "The" idea of time travel is that you can travel through time. Some theories talk of creating new demensions (or timelines), some talk of being placed outside of time so that killing your grandfather in the past will not affect 'you' but does affect the future you cam from, some theories talk about the impossibility of killing your own grandfather as doing so would mean you were never born, which means you cannot be in the past, which means you cannot have killed your grandfather... there's a lot of them, and they're all confusing.


-edit-

I'm not changing any rules. The rules are that you can't change the past, only create new time-lines. There is no rule about going back to your own time-line.

Um, I thought that was covered in 'timetravel'.

If everything you did changed the future like that then we'd have a billion new time-lines every second from everyone's actions.

Yup. Not just actions, but in-actions too. That's something I explained pages ago.
Remember, time travel is complicated.

Trunks is *part* of that time-line, he belongs there, and he came from the present which means no future exists beyond that point for him, thus his trips back to his own time can't change it (it's not there).

That's also someting I've been thinking about. But that assumes that he's gone forward to exactly the end-of-time, which is probably a bit more unrealistic than 'lazy Cell'.
But that *part of the timeline* stuff is very similar to your 'timeilnes are formed when I say they're formed' idea. It's not consistent, and that's what is needed. If a timejump creates a new timeline, then it always creates a new timeline - no exceptions. No 'he didn't change enough for it to matter', if that was true, Trunks wouldn't have created another timeline when he went back to help with the androids and Cell games. He didn't kill anyone, he spent most of the time standing around, Krillin did more than Future Trunks.

[Akira]

There is something that disproves your theory of Bulma making changes to the time machine's abilities. I will explain.

Trunks returned from his first trip to find out that nothing had changed in his time. His assumption was that the Androids must still have killed everyone, so he goes back a second time to assist in thier defeat.

It is during this trip to the past that Cell appears. Trunks discusses with Krillin and Gohan about going back in time further to try and change things again, but at THAT moment, during that discussion is when Trunks came to the realization that he was simply creating alternate universes and nothing could directly affect his timeline. He stays in the timeline he is in to see things through before attempting to return to his own. By the time Trunks returns to his own time, he does not plan to go back again. Only then would he know or even suspect that he was making other timelines for Bulma to know it and make changes to the time machine. Therefore that notion must be cast out from the overall discussion.

Also, it is not -MY- notion of Time Travel as you attempted to imply. For Cell to even appear in the past, the future must have already played out, he absorbed people and killed Trunks and took the time machine from him.

Time is always moving along, and wherever you are in it is the "present". any idea that one year is the present in one timeline and another later year is the "Present" in another timeline is ridiculous.

To quote myself: "The very idea of time travel assumes that everything has happened already but is happening currently at any given point inside of "time"."

To Quote you:

Your idea of time travel. Not "the". "The" idea of time travel is that you can travel through time. Some theories talk of creating new demensions (or timelines), some talk of being placed outside of time so that killing your grandfather in the past will not affect 'you' but does affect the future you cam from, some theories talk about the impossibility of killing your own grandfather as doing so would mean you were never born, which means you cannot be in the past, which means you cannot have killed your grandfather... there's a lot of them, and they're all confusing.

"The idea of time travel is that you can travel through time."

That just begs the question, does it not?

Well this is Toriyama-sama's interpretation and the way it is presented in fictional Dragonball. It shows alternate timelines being formed. For that to work, my statement on the matter must be true. Heck, for any time travel theory to work (Key word here "any"), my statement has to be true.

Think about it, you can argue against it for the sake of argument, but it is the only way Time Travel could work.

[desirecampbell]

Well! That boned my theory. How the hell can we explain this then? Trunks goes back in time assuming it wwill change the future, he returns to his time to find nothing's changed and goes back to the past to attempt to change his future. Only then does he realize he's creating new timelines.

So there cannot be any function of the timemachine to target specific timelines, but the timejumps must create new timelines, and there must be the ability to travel to specific timelines...

I think we're boned.

Also, it is not -MY- notion of Time Travel as you attempted to imply. For Cell to even appear in the past, the future must have already played out, he absorbed people and killed Trunks and took the time machine from him.

So Cell has to have killed Trunks... before he kills Trunks?
Eh? Well, disregarding my previous statement (which shows my theory must be wrong), there's nothing to say that new timelines have to instantly have a future - one of the things we know is that time travel creates new timelines that are completely separate from each other. I don't know where you got the idea that Cell can't take the time machine to the past if there's no future. Cell's time jump works the same way Trunks' jumps do.

Time is always moving along, and wherever you are in it is the "present". any idea that one year is the present in one timeline and another later year is the "Present" in another timeline is ridiculous.

Um, you contradict yourself. If 'wherever you are' is the present, then indeed any year is the present if you're there.
You misunderstand my theory. My theory about timelines extending at a fixed rate doesn't mean that the 'present' is different in each
It's like this: you leave your timeline (call this moment A) to the past. This new timeline is extending as you are in it at the regular rate we all experience, but the timeline you left (point A) is also extending at the same rate. Any other timeline that exists also extends this way, at the same rate. If you leave this new timeline and return to your original one, that timeline you just left continues on at the appropriate rate.

Steve had a similar theory, which is identical to mine except for the last part. When you travel back to the future, the other timelines 'catch up' to whatever timeline is 'furthest ahead'. My problem with that is the idea that it's dependant on the timetraveler leaving.

"The idea of time travel is that you can travel through time."

That just begs the question, does it not?

That is the first time I've ever seen anyone use that term correctly
Truly it does beg the question - as all bad explanations do.

Well this is Toriyama-sama's interpretation and the way it is presented in fictional Dragonball. It shows alternate timelines being formed. For that to work, my statement on the matter must be true. Heck, for any time travel theory to work (Key word here "any"), my statement has to be true.

But to say "time travel can only mean that all timelines instantly have a past and an end" is just wrong. It's not the only theory of time travel.
There are other time travel theories that don't work on a base of multiple timelines. Hell, Trunks and Bulma weren't working on that theory!

Well this is Toriyama-sama's interpretation and the way it is presented in fictional Dragonball. It shows alternate timelines being formed. For that to work, my statement on the matter must be true. Heck, for any time travel theory to work (Key word here "any"), my statement has to be true.

Think about it, you can argue against it for the sake of argument, but it is the only way Time Travel could work.

No, it's not. Firstly, it's time travel so nothing 'works'. Secondly, due to the first point, any theory is as valid as the next. If I say that time travel relies on turtles - then I'm just as right as anyone else - because time travel doesn't exist.

Now, inside the world of Dragonball, we see that time travel is possible - so we can say that one theory is right and another is wrong.

[Xyex]

I don't understand this Timeline catches up or doesn't catch up stuff. There is no further ahead or further behind stuff. When a new timeline is created, it has an identical past to the one it split from, and its future automatically plays out to the furthest extent as well. There is no "History has not been written here yet". The very idea of time travel assumes that everything has happened already but is happening currently at any given point inside of "time".

Nope, not at all. Time isn't a solid block, it's a flowing course leaving its trail behind. The 'end' of time, the head of the flow, is the 'present'. That is where everyone currently exists and time is still playing out fresh. There's nothing beyond the present because it hasn't happened yet.

I know what you're thinking. "Cell came from Trunks future, therefor there is something beyond the present." Guess what? Wrong. Cell did not come from the future that Trunks returned to, he came from the future that Trunks returned to. Or should I say, Trunks A. Trunks A is the one that existed in that other time-line, the one where Cell didn't come into the past.

That time-line then played forward, Trunks A returned home and the Future Time-line he came from played on further. Eventually Cell emerged, killed him, stole the Time Machine, and went back. But, Cell came back from his own present. It's the future to Trunks but that's only because of the point of progress his time-line has made already.

This is also why new time-lines must be formed when you change history. A new course of time forms, a new 'present' comes into existance and this new time-line must flow forward just as the others.

Um, I thought that was covered in 'timetravel'.

As I said, you can't change the past. If you go into the future you're not changing the past, are you? This is why Trunks B's return to the future caused a split. He didn't go back to his 'present' because Trunks A had already returned there, so there was a future already. But on his first return there was no future, thus no change.

That's also someting I've been thinking about. But that assumes that he's gone forward to exactly the end-of-time, which is probably a bit more unrealistic than 'lazy Cell'.

Not really. Who says you can't return to the same point? Who says that the time-lines don't flow at the same speed? If they do flow at the same speed and that speed is the speed of time we experinece then jumping ahead a far as you went back would return you to the end of the time-line. You go back 20 years, stay 5 hours, jump ahead 20 years and you appear 5 hours after you left, once again in the present of your own time-line.

But that *part of the timeline* stuff is very similar to your 'timeilnes are formed when I say they're formed' idea. It's not consistent, and that's what is needed. If a timejump creates a new timeline, then it always creates a new timeline - no exceptions. No 'he didn't change enough for it to matter', if that was true, Trunks wouldn't have created another timeline when he went back to help with the androids and Cell games. He didn't kill anyone, he spent most of the time standing around, Krillin did more than Future Trunks.

They're not similar. They're seperate theroies that happen to work well together. And as I've said twice now. 'Time jums' don't create a new time-line. Changes to the PAST that effect the FUTURE do. No future = no change. And, er, Trunks changed a LOT on his second trip back....

[Steven Perry]

Not really. Who says you can't return to the same point? Who says that the time-lines don't flow at the same speed? If they do flow at the same speed and that speed is the speed of time we experience then jumping ahead a far as you went back would return you to the end of the time-line. You go back 20 years, stay 5 hours, jump ahead 20 years and you appear 5 hours after you left, once again in the present of your own time-line.

Agreed. There were loads of things I wanted to say about Desire's theory, but I've forgotten. Ah well. Anyway... for those of you who haven't seen this, this is my theory. Or shall I say is one of my theories...

Okay, so I made something new today. And it works. I think.

My new theory doesn't have multiple timelines. In fact, it only has one. It really isn't that hard to explain; it's comparable to a recordable tape. New timelines aren't made, but the existing one is overwritten... at a regular speed.

Okay, let's go... Trunks goes back in time for the first time, kills Frieza and King Cold, blah blah blah... BUT DOESN'T create a new timeline. Instead... this alteration is continuing every second, slowly overwriting Trunks' past. The people in Trunks' future REMEMBER this past, but is no longer in existence. When Trunks travels faster than time in his machine, he passes the section that is slowly overwriting the old history, and appears in his section. However, the problem is that it's 20 years ahead of what he's just done. This section of time can never be overwritten, because it's ahead of what he just did (like a recordable tape). From these given principles, you can figure out the rest, can't you? When Cell arrives, he remembers killing Trunks. Then he overwrites what Trunks has already overwritten... Ooooh yeah.

[Xyex]

Okay, let's go... Trunks goes back in time for the first time, kills Freeza and King Cold, blah blah blah... BUT DOESN'T create a new timeline. Instead... this alteration is continuing every second, slowly overwriting Trunks' past. The people in Trunks' future REMEMBER this past, but is no longer in existence. When Trunks travels faster than time in his machine, he passes the section that is slowly overwriting the old history, and appears in his section. However, the problem is that it's 20 years ahead of what he's just done. This section of time can never be overwritten, because it's ahead of what he just did (like a recordable tape). From these given principles, you can figure out the rest, can't you? When Cell arrives, he remembers killing Trunks. Then he overwrites what Trunks has already overwritten... Ooooh yeah.

That's probably the simplest theory so far. I had that thought once, even worked out a nice functional out-line for the whole thing. But the series saying you created alternate time-lines always nagged at me so I ended up dropping it. Still, it kills a LOT of the issues that come up otherwise. XD

[Steven Perry]

That's probably the simplest theory so far. I had that thought once, even worked out a nice functional out-line for the whole thing. But the series saying you created alternate time-lines always nagged at me so I ended up dropping it. Still, it kills a LOT of the issues that come up otherwise. XD

Ah... but they didn't know that, did they? They only made an ASSUMPTIONS -like us.

[Dayspring]

Eight pages! Is this as long as the original TL discussion as from a year or two ago, or did we surpass it?

If they had replaced the Cell Games entry with the events of Movie 7 for TL4, I personally would have prefered the Daizenshuu's explanation to everthing.

In case it wasn't listed in one of the preceeding pages (Renumber them as you see fit, I'm just summarizing the Daizenshuu):

-TL1 Anime/Manga's timeline.

-TL2 Future Trunks' Timeline.

-TL3 Cell's Timeline: Because of conditions identical to TL2, Trunks goes back in time; into TL4. He returns with the remote control from TL4 and uses it to destroy the androids in his timeline. He intends to go back and use it to destroy them in TL4, but Cell kills him and steals the time machine. For reasons unexplained, the time machine takes him to TL1.

-TL4 The Plothole Timeline: Trunks from TL3 comes here. When they find the remote control, Trunks goes back to TL3 with it, intending to come back and use it on these androids as well. Trunks never comes back, so a Cell Games takes place without him present, resulting in an unknown outcome for the games.
-Problem with TL4: This is NOT the Cell that originated in TL4. It's from an unexplained future resulting from mimicing the diagram of TL1. BAD fact checkers! BAD!

[Xyex]

That's probably the simplest theory so far. I had that thought once, even worked out a nice functional out-line for the whole thing. But the series saying you created alternate time-lines always nagged at me so I ended up dropping it. Still, it kills a LOT of the issues that come up otherwise. XD

Ah... but they didn't know that, did they? They only made an ASSUMPTIONS -like us.

Heh. Sure, it's possible they were just assuming since the future wasn't changing that the past wasn't either and new time-lines were simply being created. Though, I think Bulma's smart enough to notice the difference....

[Akira]

Steven, your guide is in the format and style that would be readable and understandable by anyone who read it. It is a HUGE leap in the correct direction. I quit working on my timeline explanation (That was in a similar format) for now because once I get it all set up and notice a glaring error, it is very frustrating to have to change a bunch of stuff.

Unfortunately, I notice a big error in yours. Or perhaps what I perceieve to be an error, because it is around one of the parts I used to get hung up on.

You show Cell's trip back as altering all the previous time paths and creating a seperate set of paths that instead include him. The way you have things play out is correct I believe. However, the point of Cell's arrival in the past is incorrect.

I will try to explain why.

Trunks made the original timejump back in time. Aside from that original jump going back in his timeline and creating a secondary timeline, all other time travel is between timelines.

So even though Cell went back in time to a point BEFORE Trunks' original arrival in the past, it is the past of one of the altered timelines, not the original timeline. So, it is possible you have a bunch of unnecessary paths that you don't need.

The timelines share a common past, yes, but they don't directly connect back into a single past, if you follow my meaning.

For an early example:

(Goku vs. Vegeta) (Goku vs. Freeza) (Goku vs. Cyborg Freeza)
_____/_______________/__________________/___________________


Timeline split by trunks would have its OWN past, even though it is identical, up to the point of change, to the original timeline.

(Goku vs. Vegeta) (Goku vs. Freeza) (Trunks vs. Cyborg Freeza)
_____/_______________/__________________/___________________



So, since it was not the original trip, Cell had to travel to the past of a seperate timeline. I know it is tricky to see what I am trying to explain, but I hope I've been a help to you in pointing out my percieved flaw in your chart.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Edit and addition from here down posted 6/30/06)

Major breakthrough here guys. This goes back to the argument over weither just being somewhere changes time, or if actually causing a change to history creates a new timeline.

For the series to work as we see it play out, Cell cannot have branched things into a new timeline until his time machine is discovered and he makes his first appearance. If he branched into a new timeline when he arrived in the past, then he would branch off into a seperate timeline where Trunks never appeared. Think about it carefully.

If he changed the past before Trunks arrived the first time, then he branched into a new timeline that had its altercation point before Trunks' arrival. Therefore a timeline with no arrival of Trunks.

The only way for Cell to co-exist in the same timeline as the one Trunks has traveled back and visited is for his altercation to not take place until he surfaces from underground and starts changing the direction of the way things were going for that timeline at that point.

The more I think about this stuff, the harder it gets to chart it out though.