Thread:Shabook/@comment-25999669-20200706185717

Hi Shabook,

Hope you're well

I hope you don't mind me messaging you on here rather than on the normal MCU wiki, but I had a request that I did not want everybody else on the wiki reading.

No rush in reading it all and responding, as I know I wrote a lot here.

...

You may have seen that I got into a long winded debate with two other users regarding Daniel Sousa and multiple timelines depicted in AoS S7.

I maintain that the way they have concluded the rules of the time travel for this storyline is illogical and should not be implemented on our wiki, they suggest that when characters travel back in time, they were both always in the past, as well as capable of altering the past and creating a new timeline at the same time, based on how big of an impact their actions have.

I maintain that any interaction a time traveler from the future has with another character from the past would create a branching timeline.

To quote their argument "Time travel does not affect the past when it doesn't affect the past, and does when it does"

...

They want to argue that Malick's interactions with the agents when he was a young man always happened, that there were always people from the future interacting with him. And the only point that the timeline splits would be when he talks with Luke, leading to his survival beyond his original death.

I maintain that there would always have been one timeline where the actions played out without any interruption from the agents of Chronicoms, therefore the timeline breach would be the moment that Malick hears a knock on the door and greets Mack and Coulson. From that point on Malick is doing things that he did not previously do in the original timeline, regardless of whether the agents succeed at putting him in the same end point.

...

Their suggestion would imply that timelines pick and chose moments of change to be significant enough to timeline, whereas I maintain that any change, any interaction, would cause a split in the timeline. An example would be Hank Pym getting a call from Cap in the 70s, not a big change but it would still create a new timeline for Pym.

...

This also goes to Sousa, as they suggest that he always interacted with people from the past who saved his life. I maintain that this does not make any logical sense, as the Chronicoms specifically went to the 50s to disrupt events, and did, leading to the point where the agents prevent Sousa's death.

There must be a timeline where Sousa died, and the agents arrived a moment earlier, made a new timeline as soon as they arrived, pulled him out, and helped to recreate the moment, based on what Coulson already knew about how Sousa died, allowing everyone in that timeline to accept Sousa's death, and putting the new timeline back on the right track.

It doesn't make sense that the same journey back in time would create a loop and a branch at the same time, each action would create a branch, it cannot be a case of picking and choosing where a branch in the timeline happens.

...

These users also like to quote lines of dialogue that support their argument, when I argue that this is basically irrelevant as the characters are merely theorising about the events, and these do not work as confirmation of any theory.

Apart from maybe the Ancient One in Endgame, as she seems to know what she's talking about.

...

I hope I've explained myself well and you'll understand why I wanted to try and message you privately about this.

But if you agree, I'd hope you'd back me up on this issue, before our definition of time travel becomes broken. 