A Station Eight Fan Web Site


The Phoenix Gate

Search Ask Greg

Search type:

Displaying 1 record.

Bookmark Link

Jim R. writes...

I'm no physicist but your theories of time-travel are different than others that i've heard. I bet you've seen the "Back to the Future" trilogy, so why is it, that things Marty and the Doc did back in the past change the outcome of the future for them, because it was obvious that the past couldn't be altered until the Doc invented the time machine in the present so they could go back to the past. So the future they were familiar with when they were in the past was different when they finally came back into the future (present). (Say that ten times over...)

So, my point is, in Gargoyles, Goliath says "Time is like a river, unchanging in its course." Basically that says anything they did in the past using the Phoenix Gate did not effect the future at all? Which is confusing, because if I were to go back and save JFK, that would certainly alter the future for me and anyone else that came back with me...

On Star Trek they believe in infinite possibilies for every outcome and decision.
I know, I know...Just answer my question about the Gargoyles part. We would need Einstein to explain this quantum stuff. Hey, maybe I'll jump in my time machine and go get him. :)

Greg responds...

<Sigh> I thought the first Back to the Future movie was very entertaining. I thought the second was masturbatory (excuse my language) and I thought the third was mildly amusing.

But I thought the time travel logic was fairly loose (at best). Look, I'm no physicist either. This is all make-believe. But I wanted STRICT, STRICT rules in the garg universe to eliminate the kinds of abuses that Star Trek writers (for example) are prone to doing. Cheats that start as time-travel cheats, but wind up being story cheats, character cheats, etc.

And in the garg universe, if you went back in time to save JFK, you'd fail. Or you'd succeed. But he'd decide to go into deep hiding or travel to Avalon or to the year 2002 or something, so that history as we know it would still be exactly the same.

Response recorded on February 01, 2001