ah, cool. Alright. So, time can be changed. But here's where it get's weird. I read this book once by Ray Bradbury called "A sound of Thunder" which describes how a tourist went into the past to hunt dinosaurs that were going to be killed anyway by forces of nature. He accidentally steps on some butterfly or something which then chain reacts into an alternate future where everything, language in particular, has been changed. Now, I figured that if I were to do the same, that i'd then come back to see my world changed. But I don't think that my world changed at all, i just shifted my existance into an alternate timeline. When I left my world to go into the past, if that world really was destroyed due to my actions, then everyone in that world that witnessed me leave would suddenly be erased from existance, however if that happened then i wouldn't have been born therefore i couldn't have gone into the past to cause this and we fall into a paradox that destroys the universe. So that can't happen. We're basically trying to postulate things that will NOT upset the fabric of the universe, let us try and move away from paradoxes.
ANYWAY. my point is that if someone changed something in the timeline, the timeline wouldn't move, 'he' would move - to an alternate timeline.
Alright so you have this guy yeah? who's standing in the street looking at the clouds for 10 seconds. Bearing in mind there is a gun on the sidewalk that he is destined to see in 10 seconds time. So let's just play the movie.
10 seconds later he sees the gun, walks up to it, gets hold of it, and shoots some woman for his own pleasure (he's notorious). So, then we come into play from the anti-time. We see this in reverse so the first thing that WE see is the death occuring. Even if we see past this, the woman will still be dead, she'd just have been dead for a while. So no matter how far you try and go back, it's simply furthering past her death. So the death happens, then the bullet comes out of her back into the gun, he then puts the gun down, walks away from it, then look up at the clouds for 10 seconds. Just before he look up at the clouds, we intercept to remove the gun from the pavement. (remember that we are assuming that we will not fall into a paradox here, so that if we remove the gun, therefore removing the fact that he kills her, hence removing the knowledge of why we would then WANT to remove it. - that wouldn't happen, remember that that is a paradox, and that if this would happen, you would still exist but you will have just shifted into an alternate timeline).
So you've removed the gun - success. BUT...
: So we are now looking up at the clouds, then we have just placed the gun down by taking it from our pov, but obviously we haven't changed much there now have we?
But where has the gun come from is what i am concerned about? if i have PLACED it there by TAKING it, that PROVES that i have taken the gun from one timeline, to another. because i have provided the gun, but where did 'i' get it from? i got it from where it already was, but by me taking it, it isn't there anymore, it's in my possession. Do you know what i'm getting at?
This is really giving me a headache now so i will now bid farewell..
