Howling:Time travel theory

Howling: → Howling archive → The Howling archives → Time travel theory

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on The Howling if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

I've been having a "discussion" with an IP about time travel. They don't understand my theory. Originally the post was about River and how River didn't know Rory in Series 5, even though they'll both appear in series 6 and most probably meet, which is set before River meets the Doctor at the end of the Big Bang. My theory was that, unless Rory was absent from series 6 when River appears, River had the series 6 adventures before she returned to the wedding, which would explain why can know of Rory in series 6. I want to know who understands the theory as one IP claims that it is impossible.

The events follow as such:

1. The Doctor resets the universe making himself non existent in the future of that time-line.
2. Rory and Amy are returned to their wedding day, River to wherever she would be in the future.
3. Amy remembers the Doctor and brings him and the TARDIS back. This creates a new future (a split time-line) where the Doctor exists.
4. The Doctor, Amy and Rory then travel to the future where the Doctor exists and pick up River.
5. The four live through the events of series six, which is how River wouldn't know Rory in the Pandorica Opens, but would have met him by the events of series 6.
6. From the future, they travel back to the wedding and drop River off with her diary.
7. The diary's writing would disappear as at that point in the time-line, Amy had not remembered the Doctor, so the time-line had a future in which the Doctor did not exist. This is the same as in City of the Daleks where Amy was beginning to disappear since she came from a future that did not exist at that point in the time line.
8. Amy remembers which brings us back to point three, and the paradoxical cycle begins again.

Have a look here for and explanation of how the split time-line basically works.

Here's a break down of the individual time-lines:

Amy and Rory's timeline:

1. Return to wedding
2. Amy remembers
3. Pick up River and they live through series 6
4. Drop River off at the wedding and leave

River's timeline:

1. River is returned to the far future
2. Just as happens to Jennifer in Back to the Future, the time-line changes around River when Amy remembers
3. The Doctor, Amy and Rory pick up River and live through series 6
4. River is dropped off at the wedding. Her book looses it's writing, as the future it came from does not exist because the course the timeline is on will not lead to that future
5. River gives Amy the diary to remember, causing the future to change around her past self, bringing us back to point 2.
6. River gets her diary back from the newly brought back Doctor and warns him of the series 6 events.

The Doctor's timeline:

1. The Doctor causes himself not to exist
2. Amy remembers him and brings him back
3. River warns him of the series 6 events
4. He, Amy and Rory pick up River from the future and they live through series 6.
5. Knowing River caused his re-existence as he knew she had given Amy her diary, he drops her off so she can give Amy the diary and cause him to re-exist, bringing us back to point number 2.

Now, I'd like the opinions of others about this theory. --The Thirteenth Doctor 21:36, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ok.. First of all i would like to point out that i'm only familiar with the revived series of Doctor Who, so i'm not a real expert. But regarding the time travel laws, i see (from what i've watched so far) that these laws are somehow left vague and partly unexplained, which leaves it to the writers to add or alter some aspects of those laws, on condition that they give us an explanation. The main point you're arguing about is whether it is possible for the future doctor to travel back to a timeline in which he never existed. I think Moffat can choose either way and he can find a good explanation for both. We can speculate but anything is possible...

Personally i disagree with the Thirteenth for 2 reasons:

1. After Amy brings back the doctor, everything in the universe is put into place. Crossing your own timeline and changing things is now forbidden like before. The doctor can't change his own past without consequences. He did all the paradoxes in "The Big Bang" because the universe was torn apart and rules didnt apply anymore. But in series 6 everything is normal again.

2. At the wedding, the doctor didnt exist in the past, present or future. When Amy brought him back, the timeline in which the doctor didnt exist doesnt exist anymore.. so the doctor can't travel back in time to something that isnt there anymore. If he now travels back to the wedding, the doctor exists and River's book is full not empty because all the adventures they had are still there.

3. This point has nothing to do with time travel laws, and it's just a speculation from my side. But i think in Series 6, River won't be a companion to the doctor. She will be on the other side. Remember what she said to the doctor? "U'll soon find out who i am and that's when everything changes". What i understood from that sentence that earlier in her timeline (series 6) we will see another side of River, before she got that close to the doctor. She might be working against the doctor, so it is unlikely that he'll pick her up and drop her at the wedding.63.216.120.87 22:31, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

• About the paradoxes, they are allowed to occur, just not to the level of "Father's Day". In that instance, Rose's interference gave no reason for her past self to go back in time again and save her father as he was already saved. This instance is more like River's screwdriver; the Doctor only gave her his screwdriver, because his past self knew he gave her his screwdriver as she had it when he was in the library. I can see where you're coming from with point 2. Though, that really does depend on the whole "cracks" debate; does being erased from existence cause events to change? Personally, I don't think so or the whole cause of the Crash of the Byzantium goes out of the window. If the physicality changed then the crash would have been negated. This must mean that the events which happened still existed in the same time-line. As for River being on the other side, I can see that happening, yes, but by the end of it she does seem to really care for him, so my guess is even if she starts out bad in series 6, he'll change her. But thanks for giving your input. The Thirteenth Doctor 22:53, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • haha...People actually get how wrong you are...You can't say people who agree with the flawed model understands it...That's just being irrational...They would be misunderstanding with you...This new model you have, since every time you say it you depict a slightly different one, reveals the following flaws:
  1. The Doctor isn't time travelling in your stuff, he's travelling across possibilities...63 raised a good point and you misunderstood it...Your depiction of a forked timeline doesn't apply here because your forked timeline implies the Doctor must be able to repeatedly not exist before Amy's wedding. A Doctor who exists in the past and future travelled to a different timeline where he didn't exist in the past, he is not travelling on the same timeline! The show didn't depict a forked timeline, it depicted 2 timelines and the TARDIS didn't travel across the timelines, it was recreated/brought into existence in the 2nd timeline after being destroyed in one. You are saying the Doctor from a timeline where he exists can travel to a timeline where he doesn't, this is essentially travelling across parallel universes and not just time travel where the TARDIS travelled on the same timeline. The great point 63 raised is that on the timeline, the Doctor existed before the wedding just as much as he existed after it...if it's a forked timeline, he wouldn't exist before the wedding, he would only come into existence afterward.
  2. Neither would the texts be gone, not because of some unknown properties of cracks, but because the book would be a book from the future unaffected by the past before the wedding day, so all of the texts would stay on...which is contrary to what was shown on screen
  3. the forked timeline requires the Doctor to essentially be born on the wedding day, since the Doctor existing before that point would mean a "ll"-shaped or "X"-shaped timeine rather than a "Y"-shaped one...this contradicts with River Song/Rory knowing the Doctor as shown on screen

63, Thirteenth is one-tenth of a heavily damaged single-cell organism compared to you....Thirteenth, your entire ugly irrational stuff relies on the Doctor travelling to a point that doesn't exist on his timeline if he exists...to be honest, I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone to misunderstand it with you...--203.168.176.42 02:10, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

In series 6, if the doctor travels back to the wedding and before the wedding he'll be there with Amy.. he wont have to bring himself back anymore!94.187.77.178 11:38, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think it could happen perfectly well as in The Thirteenth Doctor's theory. It's basically the same thing that happened in The Big Bang. (And by basically, I don't mean exactly, so please don't start about how the conditions were completely different. It's the same concept. Time travel.)

I just wanted to say that I don't see why it couldn't work like that, because after reading this thread and the previous I have to say that the same repeated comments and insults do get a bit annoying.Awaris34 21:32, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Awaris i agree with u about the insults part. This is a forum for discussion not fighting. As for the time travel theory, i have to disagree. If the doctor now travels back in time to Amy's wedding, he'll find that he exists. It's not like he didnt exist before the wedding. He now exists before and after the wedding. It's not time travel you're talking about, it's timeline travel. In other words, in The Big Bang, wedding day, before Amy remembered the doctor, there was not future doctor to come back to the wedding. The doctor then didnt exists throughout time and space, so in that timeline he couldnt possible travel back to the wedding day because he didnt exist in the future. Now after Amy remembered him, he came back to existence in the past present and future, including the wedding day. The timeline where he never existed doesnt exist anymore so he cannot possibly travel back to that timeline. As for comparing it to what happened in the Big Bang, it's a different thing. The doctor traveled back in the timeline after the tardis exploded. He went back to 102 AD and forth to 1996, and in both times the universe doesnt exist anymore. He didnt go back to 102 where the universe existed. So basically he travelled within the same timeline. Now after Big Bang 2 and after Amy brought him back, if he travels back to 102 AD he'll find that the universe still exists, i.e. he wont find Rory holding a dead Amy :) 91.73.110.108 11:26, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Well, Thirteenth...ahem, Awaris34...in whatever incarnation you are...It's just kind of sad that you still can't see how irrational and self-contradicting the whole theory is. And it's more sad to see people keep quoting the situations that are the exact opposite of this situation here and claim that they're similar: TBB Doctor travelled from a time where he/Amy exists to a time where he/Amy exists, but in here, the Doctor travels to a timeline where he never existed and never would have. I wanted to post a few diagrams but I have been and is still busy with marking exams. If the show does use anything remotely similar to this, then these are DEFINITELY NOT the justifications that they could use and get away with. Anyway, I got this great inspiration from another post to explain it so that anyone would (well, at least "should") understand, if you think about this question, you will see how ridiculous the whole theory is: Does it make sense for the Doctor to be able to time travel to the Year that Never Was? There. --222.166.181.209 12:35, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

222, you can't say that they can't do it. You don't know the rules of time travel. Nobody does. Until there are strict rules, anything goes. The Thirteenth Doctor 12:45, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Then go edit the article on the Laws of Time, every section of the article directly contradicts your "anything goes" theory. Moreover, you are going on a forum asking people to agree...ahem, "understand"... a "theory" that contradicts everything shown on screen and all sense of logic and rationality and when pretty much everyone sees the flaws and point it out to you, you don't address any of the flaws and just say that your rationale is that "anything goes"...you probably should reconsider whether it is appropriate material for a dicussion forum...

If you go on like this, the forum will be soon be filled with infinite amount of threads asking people to agree...ahem, "understands"...irrational theories that directly contradict the articles/show/other materials...this place will be turned into a collection of spams...--222.166.181.122 13:23, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Time travel to parallel worlds now is impossible... oh... it happened... and again... and again? Yes they gave explanations for it, so I'm pretty sure they could do the same for this.

And I believe that the Doctor could visit the Year that Never Was if he so desired. If he went back to the moment that the Tocclafane arrived and lived through it linearly... then he would be visiting it... at the end of the year, unless he was on board the valiant, he would have his memory removed and would be returned to where he was before the tocclafane arrived.

And you're argument that he couldn't visit the YTNW is completely contradicted by your earlier points. That only changed the future, ie created a fork in the timeline... it didn't change the past like in the Big Bang, just the future... which is a different timeline model. --The Thirteenth Doctor 13:56, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

1. You were saying that the Doctor travelled to an alternate timeline by the TARDIS deliberately, not by an accident...so are you now changing it to say it may be an accident? You'll have to change your entire scenario to accomodate for this change and not just say that "it may be an accident"

2. (The point about getting to the moment where Toclafanes arrive is actually flawed as they no longer arrived, but we'll ignore this for now to help you see how the scenario you described has nothing to do with it) That scenario is not travelling to the timeline, that is creating the timeline and living through it...It is completely unrelated to what you said...If you want to use that model, you'll have to adjust your theory into saying that the Doctor travelled back to before Amy's wedding on a timeline where he exists and deliberately blow up the TARDIS to cause a explosion and erase his own existence and have River live through it...This is completely different from what you have described.

3. If you think it is forked timeline then you need to explain the following:

a. Are all past incarnations of the Doctor now gone, and the Doctor's personal timeline starts from Amy's wedding? If it's not, then it's not a fork timeline because the Doctor existing in the past and the Doctor not existing in the past would be 2 separate timelines.

b. If it is a fork timeline, then why would the texts on the book be gone? Since the Doctor starts existing from the wedding, time travelling to the past or any point before his existence would not interrupt his existence. To say that it does would mean that the Doctor would just suddenly fade out of existence if he travelled to any point in time before the wedding.

I hope this helps you to understand the simple concepts...because everyone else pretty much already got it since the beginning... --222.166.181.110 14:41, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

1. I've never said he did it deliberately... just that he dropped River off there.

2. They only no longer arrived due to time being reversed... but after it had happened.

3. Did you read my post? I was talking about the YTNW. IT was a forked timeline.

Look. My very original point in the River Rory forum was the fact that we don't know where River came from at the end of the Big Bang. If by then she had already lived through the series 6 events having known Rory, it must have been after the Pandorica Opens but before the wedding. --The Thirteenth Doctor 15:09, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

1. "Knowing River caused his re-existence as he knew she had given Amy her diary, he drops her off so she can give Amy the diary and cause him to re-exist, bringing us back to point number 2."

2 +3. I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying something more sensical. The problem with what you said is that there is no Toclafane invasion, thus it is called the Year that NEVER WAS. However, it still makes no sense either to travel to another point other than the pivotal event that forms the paths or any event before that. Once the Doctor have taken one path in the timeline, traveling directly to another point on another path would mean travelling across onto another possibility. This is equivalent to saying that the Doctor could use the TARDIS to travel from a June 26, 2010 3:00AM where he is with Amy to another June 26, 2010 3:00AM where Amy never existed and he is married to Rose due to events he/others have taken. This would make the entire show pretty meaningless

3. So are you now abandoning the idea that this theory you came up with is a simple forked timeline as you have stated? You'll need to rephrase/rewrite everything to accomodate for that...because it's an entirely different model now.

"Look. My very original point in the River Rory forum was the fact that we don't know where River came from at the end of the Big Bang. If by then she had already lived through the series 6 events having known Rory, it must have been after the Pandorica Opens but before the wedding."

Don't you think it's a bit far-fetched and meaningless for discussion? You speculated an entire situation where River at the end of TBB had already lived through Series 6, which is not supported by any on screen evidence or indicated by anything and is completely speculative, and you say that if she lived through it then she must have lived through it and you know that there will be logical flaws but no one understand the rules of time so it's pointless to discuss. You are asking us to assume an entire made-up scenario, and you say that if the consequence happened then it must have happened. People point out rationales that directly contradict the possibility of the scenario given your reasoning, then you say anything could happen. I don't know how to help you understand this but when something doesn't contribute, it's a spam. --222.166.181.74 15:53, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

The year that never was did happen however. Reversing time is not removing it. If you drive along one road then turn back and go down another, the other road doesn't stop existing, it's still there.

"You speculated an entire situation where River at the end of TBB had already lived through Series 6, which is not supported by any on screen evidence or indicated by anything and is completely speculative" There is nothing speculative. She has lived through it. "Who are you?" "You're going to find out very soon now and I'm sorry but that's when everything changes". That's series six, which she's obviously already lived through, so I don't know where you're getting this thought that I'm speculating about that.

Yes, he knows that and drops her off there. He doesn't need to get there on purpose to drop her off. If you're driving around a town looking for some shops and someone else want's to go home, and you pass their house, you'd let them off, wouldn't you, but you wouldn't necessarily have gone their deliberately.

I've abandoned the forked theory for a while, someone else explained it better to me. The basic theory, however, does still work.

Actually, your theory that it is an entirely different timeline is dependant on one thing. If it is a totally different timeline, then the cracks need to effectively remove all of the past events which happened involving the Doctor, physically changing the past. We know, however, that this doesn't happen - the Byzantium still crashed, the Doctor was not shot by Restac, Rory was still in a photo etc. This actually implies that it is the same timeline, but memories are altered to reflect this.

I know what spam is, and I know that this is not it. If you truly believe it is spam, then contact an admin and ask them.

On a different point, I've not noticed any of your contributions outside of the forums. You do know that you are supposed to contribute outside of the forums as well, don't you? As a regular user, I'd advise you to sign up. :) --The Thirteenth Doctor 16:26, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

How can your basic theory be the same when your basic theory was the forked theory? If the forked timeline is invalid, the theory is completely wrong and you need to create a new one to explain it, not ignore your errors and pretend everything still works when the whole theory has always been completely irrational. I am just quite shocked to see that you keep on citing these things like "the TARDIS protected Amy, but in a case where the TARDIS doesn't exist it still applies", "he can travel back because it's a forked timeline but now that I don't think it's a forked timeline, it still applies and he can travel back", "THTNW was a forked timeline, and this isn't, but we'll still apply it here."....The things you say just make no sense....

As for the series 6 thing, yes I typed the wrong stuff, I wasn't thinking, because I'm doing my works while typing the response...I probably meant to say you are creating a scenario with no supports just to get people to agree. The scenario is so far-fetched and you must ignored so many things established in the show that it was completely pointless to begin with, and opening threads is just a waste of resources.

"Yes, he knows that and drops her off there. He doesn't need to get there on purpose to drop her off. If you're driving around a town looking for some shops and someone else want's to go home, and you pass their house, you'd let them off, wouldn't you, but you wouldn't necessarily have gone their deliberately."

This is already against your original model where you say that the Future Doctor get her to fulfill the tautology. If you modified your model, you need to write it out. You can't quote things from your mind that you haven't said yet. This argument is also pointless, as by "deliberate", it is obvious that no one meant that whether or not the Doctor deliberately going to the time would affect the outcome...Most people would understand that "deliberate" is used in the sense that it's not time travelling performed by the TARDIS. If you think it's an incidental event that happened and allowed the Doctor and River to cross timelines, then you can't really call it "Time travel theory" as you have titled.

"Actually, your theory that it is an entirely different timeline is dependant on one thing. If it is a totally different timeline, then the cracks need to effectively remove all of the past events which happened involving the Doctor, physically changing the past. We know, however, that this doesn't happen - the Byzantium still crashed, the Doctor was not shot by Restac, Rory was still in a photo etc. This actually implies that it is the same timeline, but memories are altered to reflect this."

This point is mostly invalid. Almost everyone in this thread has tried to explain it to you at one point or another what different timelines mean, and to be honest, I think if you don't get it at this point, probably no one can help you. First of all, your points are speculative and we don't know whether or not the Byzantium still crashed... Secondly, that has nothing to do with whether or not they are on the same timeline or not, if there is Rose on one timeline, and Rose on another, that doesn't make them one timeline....if Stolen Earth happened on timeline A and timeline B, that doesn't mean there is only one timeline...what you said is just illogical. Throwing in random points that really have no relation with your theory is really not going to help.

I'll just try to rephrase to you one more time...I'm probably like the 4th/5th person to tell you this...anyway...

________A1________W1________ B1________

________A2________W2________B2________

Near End of TBB Timeline: Doctor doesn't exist in all of time, from beginning to end.

End of TBB Timeline: Doctor exists from point A2 to B2.

Fork timeine doesn't work, because A1W1 <> A2W2, as the Doctor is in two different states.

A1B1 <> A2B2, so in the scope of the show, they are two different timelines. --222.166.181.165 17:48, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

You really don't read my posts do you? The very first post in this forum. "My theory was that, unless Rory was absent from series 6 when River appears, River had the series 6 adventures before she returned to the wedding, which would explain why can know of Rory in series 6." That's the basic theory. --The Thirteenth Doctor 20:06, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

And almost EVERYONE in this thread and the other one told you...IT DOESN'T WORK! You can't throw in a scenario that cannot logically happen unless you can back it. The whole thing is getting babaric, you acknowledge the forked timeline doesn't work, and everyone told you the whole model is just plain irrational, then now you're saying you can reject the theory and the conclusion could still hold true? That would not be a basic theory...that would be just making a senseless statement despite that all its supports have been refuted. If you have no theory and you are just making a logically impossible claim, you should probably not post it in the forum asking people to "understand" it...--222.166.181.46 06:33, August 9, 2010 (UTC)