Mitchell and SG-Continuum!?

[All Seeing Eye]

That's why they call it a "paradox"!

There is a difference between a Paradox and a pre-destination paradox!!!!!!! but it's not even a paradox, baal will always go back in time yes and he will always meet that Mitchell from the original timeline, there no paradox occuring because there are two seperate timelines at play.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

That's why they call it a "paradox"!

There is a difference between a Paradox and a pre-destination paradox!!!!!!! but it's not even a paradox, baal will always go back in time yes and he will always meet that Mitchell from the original timeline, there no paradox occuring because there are two seperate timelines at play.

It's essentially the same thing that happened to Spock in "Yesteryear". If what happened HADN'T happened in the past, the future would have turned out different.

"Cousin Selek" was ALWAYS Spock, because Spock WAS "Cousin Selek". If Spock had not gone back in time, then he died at the age of seven, and the timeline was altered. But he DID go back, and was "Cousin Selek".

 

[All Seeing Eye]

That's why they call it a "paradox"!

There is a difference between a Paradox and a pre-destination paradox!!!!!!! but it's not even a paradox, baal will always go back in time yes and he will always meet that Mitchell from the original timeline, there no paradox occuring because there are two seperate timelines at play.

It's essentially the same thing that happened to Spock in "Yesteryear". If what happened HADN'T happened in the past, the future would have turned out different.

"Cousin Selek" was ALWAYS Spock, because Spock WAS "Cousin Selek". If Spock had not gone back in time, then he died at the age of seven, and the timeline was altered. But he DID go back, and was "Cousin Selek".

Look, even if it is a paradox (on Stargate) it's not a pre-destination one and i've explained pretty much all I need to explain so.............

I win and case closed.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Look, even if it is a paradox (on Stargate) it's not a pre-destination one and i've explained pretty much all I need to explain so.............

I win and case closed.

Sorry, you don't just get to "declare a great victory".

You also don't get to redefine things to suit yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_paradox

 

[Silversmok3]

That's why they call it a "paradox"!

but it's not even a paradox, baal will always go back in time yes and he will always meet that Mitchell from the original timeline, there no paradox occuring because there are two seperate timelines at play.

No disrespect,but you are incorrect.

First,there is no alternate timeline.Since Baal's initial trip to 1933 caused people and buildings to dissapear in real-time,there was only one timeline at any point.

Second,what has happened with Mitchell is a 'logical' paradox.Instead of going back in time and doing something that would stop you from going back in time (like killing your grandpa) ,your trip to the past causes your future self to initiate the trip to the past.

In example form,let's say you rear end a car on Main Street coming home from work.

You then go back in time to prevent the accident.

Since you can't call yourself and expect your present self to believe the truth,you(future self) go to Main Street and close the road,hoping you'll take a detour and avoid the accident.

A driver in front of your present self panic-stops at the closed road,causing your current self to rear-end the car.

The above sequence makes perfect sense(considering I made it off the top of my head lol).It's a paradox because your time travel into the past created the present that inspired you to change the future-by traveling into the past.


This is what has taken place with Mitchell.He is saved from the timeline changes by the Tok'ra Stargate,ends up at alternate Earth,lives on Alt.E ,then goes back to 1929 via Praxion Stargate,waits until 1933 to kill Baal,then lives his life alongside his grandfather.

So that future Baal can try it all again,fubar the timeline,and start the cycle again.

After all that typing I HOPE you understand lol.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Look, even if it is a paradox (on Stargate) it's not a pre-destination one and i've explained pretty much all I need to explain so.............

I win and case closed.

Sorry, you don't just get to "declare a great victory".

You also don't get to redefine things to suit yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_paradox

How the heck have I redefined anything. THERE IS NO TIME LOOP! Mitchell has not always been his uncle. The new timeline Mitchell does not need to go back in time because the Mitchell from the previous timeline is there to stop Baal. Even though the previous timeline no longer exists the Mitchell from that previous timeline DOES exist.
Yes the fact that Mitchell is there and does still exist is a paradox (a paradox cause by travel through the wormhole) but it is NOT a pre-destination paradox because there is no time loop, because future Mitchell does not need to travel back in time, if the new future mitchell DID travel back in time he'd meet the alternate timeline mitchell. Why can't you understand that.

An example of a pre-destination paradox is in Trek when the Borg in FC go back in time to 2063, some Borg drones got stuck in the south pole and in 2151 they set off back to the Delta Quadrant. Just before they were destroyed they sent the Borg of that century the co-ordinates of Earth and THAT is the reason the Borg came searching for Earth during the time of the Ent-D. It's a time loop, if the drones hadn't sent the msg then the Borg wouldn't have come looking for Earth and thus would never have gone back in time and thus never sent the msg. THAT IS A PRE-DESTINATION PARADOX!

 

[Guy Gardener]

It's an alternate timeline existing in the same space-time.

They can't both exist because there is not enough space-time in reserve, so one demolishes the other.

There will never be paradoxes with these rules, but it also means you can't go home.

Of course the quantum Mirror they use to travel to alternate space-times tells us that other spce-times do exist, and by these rules that means that Hammond in the unaltered space-time we knew up until it's destruction in the episode "1969" did not have fore knowledge that he would meet O'Niel and Carter.

I like how Stargate does timetravel. It only gives morons a head ache.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

How the heck have I redefined anything. THERE IS NO TIME LOOP! Mitchell has not always been his uncle. The new timeline Mitchell does not need to go back in time because the Mitchell from the previous timeline is there to stop Baal. Even though the previous timeline no longer exists the Mitchell from that previous timeline DOES exist.
Yes the fact that Mitchell is there and does still exist is a paradox (a paradox cause by travel through the wormhole) but it is NOT a pre-destination paradox because there is no time loop, because future Mitchell does not need to travel back in time, if the new future mitchell DID travel back in time he'd meet the alternate timeline mitchell. Why can't you understand that.

An example of a pre-destination paradox is in Trek when the Borg in FC go back in time to 2063, some Borg drones got stuck in the south pole and in 2151 they set off back to the Delta Quadrant. Just before they were destroyed they sent the Borg of that century the co-ordinates of Earth and THAT is the reason the Borg came searching for Earth during the time of the Ent-D. It's a time loop, if the drones hadn't sent the msg then the Borg wouldn't have come looking for Earth and thus would never have gone back in time and thus never sent the msg. THAT IS A PRE-DESTINATION PARADOX!

You're mixing perspectives and placements all up and down the continuum here. There absolutely IS a time loop...one that begins and ends with the stargate on the ship.

Mitchel mentions he has an uncle on that ship, because he is a product of the CORRECTED timeline, and always has been. That uncle is Mitchell himself. Therefore Mitchel 2007 (?) MUST become Mitchell 193whatever in order for Mitchell 2007 to have had an uncle on that ship.

Mitchell2007 lives his life up to the point where Baal futzes the timeline, loops BACK in time using Baal's device, becomes his "uncle", and corrects Baals tampering. Then he presumedly lives out his life in the past.

Under the rules of Stargate time travel, Mitchell CANNOT be from "another timeline" (aka a quantum reality) because he will suffer the effects of quantum degredation. Therefore Mitchell 1930s MUST be from THE SAME timestream as Mitchell 2007, and must in fact BE Mitchell 2007, posing as his "uncle".

No matter how many times you chant "Nuh Uh!", it remains a fact.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

It's an alternate timeline existing in the same space-time.

They can't both exist because there is not enough space-time in reserve, so one demolishes the other.

There will never be paradoxes with these rules, but it also means you can't go home.

Of course the quantum Mirror they use to travel to alternate space-times tells us that other spce-times do exist, and by these rules that means that Hammond in the unaltered space-time we knew up until it's destruction in the episode "1969" did not have fore knowledge that he would meet O'Niel and Carter.

I like how Stargate does timetravel. It only gives morons a head ache.

But you CAN go home via the quantum mirror. In fact you MUST, or die. That means for a person to survive in a timeline, they MUST BE NATIVE to that timeline.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

You're mixing perspectives and placements all up and down the continuum here. There absolutely IS a time loop...one that begins and ends with the stargate on the ship.

Mitchel mentions he has an uncle on that ship, because he is a product of the CORRECTED timeline, and always has been. That uncle is Mitchell himself.

No no no no no. The guy on the boat who looks like Mitchell is his grandfather, in the original timeline he throws the bomb out of the boat and dies after Baals attack. After Mitchell time travels and kills Baal the new timeline is created where he become his own Uncle, or great uncle, whichever one you want to choose.
You seem to be under the false impression that the captain on the boat who looks like Mitchell is Mitchell himself which is NOT the case, he's a genuine ancestor.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

You're mixing perspectives and placements all up and down the continuum here. There absolutely IS a time loop...one that begins and ends with the stargate on the ship.

Mitchel mentions he has an uncle on that ship, because he is a product of the CORRECTED timeline, and always has been. That uncle is Mitchell himself.

No no no no no. The guy on the boat who looks like Mitchell is his grandfather, in the original timeline he throws the bomb out of the boat and dies after Baals attack. After Mitchell time travels and kills Baal the new timeline is created where he become his own Uncle, or great uncle, whichever one you want to choose.
You seem to be under the false impression that the captain on the boat who looks like Mitchell is Mitchell himself which is NOT the case, he's a genuine ancestor.

Sorry, but that doesn't hold up.

Said legit ancestor does not appear UNTIL after the timeline is corrected. He is not in the timeline PRIOR to Baal's tampering. That is because the ancestor IS Mitchell. He MUST be. That Mitchell knows about the ancestor is because he is a product of "corrected time", which includes his time-traveling counterpart posing as his uncle.

 

[RoJoHen]

^I think you're both talking about 2 different people.

Mitchell's actual grandfather is there on the boat in the very beginning, and his "Uncle" is not around yet, which is why Ba'al was able to alter the timeline in the first place.

Thing is, we really don't know if it's a time loop or not because we don't know if the Ba'al from the new timeline built his time machine at all. He probably did, because killing his future self would have little effect on his life to that point, but you never know. Butterfly effect and all that jazz.

If "Corrected Timeline Ba'al" did build a time machine like he did in the original timeline, you would have a time loop.

It he did not build a time machine, then there is no loop, because the time travel ends with Mitchell killing Ba'al.

 

[Silversmok3]

(/sigh)

Here's the whole logical paradox,from start to finish.

Mitchell #1 is born in the 70's presumably,grows up and joins the SGC.
He then goes with SG1 and co. to Tokra HQ for Baal's extraction.

At the same time Baal clone dials Earth from Praxion and does his damage in 1933,causing buildings and people to vanish as the changes in the past change the future real time.

This would have been the end of the story,but SG1 was in transit via Stargate while the present was changing,thus preserving the team to arrive on the present Earth,which had reverted to the Baal-ified timeline.

Just to be clear,NO universe jumping has taken place.And only Baal has traveled via time so far.

Mitchell lives his year on Baal-ified Earth,when Baal shows up smug and ready to collect.

Mitchell goes to Praxion,dials Earth of 1929 and waits 4 years for his chance.

What he does in those 4 years isn't known,but what is clear is he is a crewmember on Achilles,and shuts down Baals plan with a good ole' .45 cal to the cranium.

We obviously don't see this in-movie,but Baal of the future must have been frightened as he saw his fleet,Qetesh,and all he amassed vanish much as Teal'c and Vala turned to vapor in real-time once said bullet killed his clone in the past.

Then things continue as planned,but the picture of his 'uncle' and the Achilles moves from his aunt's nightstand to his locker.

Understand,that Mitchell was a crewmember of the Achilles by the time Baal showed up,and had already established himself as the captain's brother,as his grandfather didn't demand an explaination at gunpoint,as well as the fact the crewmen were taking orders from him.

Think about it,if a stowaway shoved a submachine gun in my hand and said we were being boarded I'd be just as likely to ask why-while pointing his own gun back at him!

Thus,all is as it is,and as it should be.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

^ That's exactly what i've been saying but darkwing is under the false impression that Mitchell's grandfather is Mitchell and for the record darkwing we DO see Mitchells grandpa on the boat in the original timeline, as I said he's the one who throws the bomb off the boat.

There is NO timeloop and thus no pre-destination paradox, the only paradox is that the now erased timeline Mitchell still exists and that was only a paradox created by travelling through the Stargate.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

(/sigh)
We obviously don't see this in-movie,but Baal of the future must have been frightened as he saw his fleet,Qetesh,and all he amassed vanish much as Teal'c and Vala turned to vapor in real-time once said bullet killed his clone in the past.

The "Baal of the future" in this case vanished along with the entirety of what he had done, since he WAS the "Baal of the past" that time traveled. He knew what the satphone was, and how to operate it. He also said "I've been looking forward to this for a LONG time", indicating that HE is the history-changing Baal.

Presumedly, he killed his "past time" counterpart and assumed his place (off camera). When the timeline is corrected, the original, non-time traveling Baal is "saved", and can go on to become the time-traveling "future" Baal from the series.

Other than that objection, I think you have it mostly right...

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^ That's exactly what i've been saying but darkwing is under the false impression that Mitchell's grandfather is Mitchell and for the record darkwing we DO see Mitchells grandpa on the boat in the original timeline, as I said he's the one who throws the bomb off the boat.

NO. I NEVER said Mitchell is his grandfather, I said he is his "uncle".

There is NO timeloop and thus no pre-destination paradox, the only paradox is that the now erased timeline Mitchell still exists and that was only a paradox created by travelling through the Stargate.

And that is where you are incorrect. Within the context of the altered timeline, the alteration can ONLY happen because of the events of 2007, and the fact that the events of 2007 happen the way they did is BECAUSE the events of 1930s happen the way they did.

You're messing yourself up by trying to jump in and out of that timeframe, confusing the TIMELINE with "viewers' perspective".

It's a plothole common to time-travel stories. The viewer sees BOTH the original and corrected timelines. The people IN the timeline only know the one they inhabit. And the Mitchell 2007 OF the corrected timeline MUST in fact go back in order for his timeline to even exist.

 

[cylkoth]

O'Brien:I hate temporal mechanics...

 

[darkwing_duck1]

O'Brien:I hate temporal mechanics...

LOL!

 

[AJBryant]

He couldn't risk fighting in WWII, if he killed even one soldier who shouldn't have been killed in the original timeline, he could end up causing as much damage as Baal.

Or, conversely, if he *didn't* kill a soldier who SHOULD have died...

Time travel is a bitch.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

He couldn't risk fighting in WWII, if he killed even one soldier who shouldn't have been killed in the original timeline, he could end up causing as much damage as Baal.

Or, conversely, if he *didn't* kill a soldier who SHOULD have died...

Time travel is a bitch.

That applies no matter WHAT he does... Just walking down the street he could inadvertently do something that screws things up, at least in theory...

That's why, in general, I beleive that either time travel is impossible or that "the proper history" is more resiliant than the "butterfly" people claim it is. I think the broad strokes generally remain, even if details are changed.