No one (1) movie with logically consistent time travel mechanics

Planet of the Apes

time machine (2002)
guy created time machine to save his girl
every time he tried to save her, he failed
it was revealed that she must die because otherwise he would've never crete time machine

So let me get this straight. We're in 2019 now so If I built a time machine and went back to 2001 to try and stop 9/11 I would never succeed because 9/11 happened which lead me to built my time machine in the first place.

Therefore time travel is impossible.

This.

I can't be consistent in movie, if it isn't consistent in life to being with.
You may have some movies with clear rules and their own laws of time, which most likely differ from ours. But no movie about time travel is flawless.

There is one interesting one, though. A Brazilian short movie. The crazy scientist creates a device to go back in time, he needs to sit in a chair and press a button. He is affraid of breaking the universe, so he sets the timer to half a second before pressing the button. The jump back in time works, but he unknowingly set the arrival time to be exactly when he is pressing the button, making it too late to stop the action, but not late enough to be not understand what he did. He gets trapped in that timeloop forever. Since the movies end there, and do not show if he is reversing time in the whole universe or just for hilmself, we couldnt tell how consistent it is.

Btw, I think a villain in the Batman cartoos does the same, he fucks up somehow and start going back in time a few seconds, and can't stop himself from going back again and again.

in such a time loop situation, is it pretty much just two copies of the person, one with knowledge of how it plays out and the other never knows? or does knowledge shift each time

We

Based

But this is stupid because in that alternate timeline you created you wouldn't need a time machine.

Forward in time, every film ever. Backwards in time is another matter though

Attached: 1345157268492.png (446x334, 200K)

Actually, I think that in the movie it is implied that the dude doesn't know how much he fucked up.

He says someting like "I will set the time to go back a slip second, a hiccup in time, a quick change, long enough for me to notice, but not enough to break the universe". And presses de button, and then the scene flashes white immediately go back to him saying "I will set the time to go back a slip second, a hiccup in time...", and pressing the button again, and the screen flashing again, and he saying again. Then the movie ends after a few repetitions of this.

There are 4 possibilities:
1) Time travel without being able to change things. You time travel but can only observe and not interact with anything.
2) Ethical time travel. Time travel is discovered but humans have decided to not change anything significant when they do, thus causing a stable time loop because everything they've done has already been accounted for. Like taking an animal or plant from prehistoric times, which would already be accounted for.
3) Mandela Effect. People have created time travel and have attempted to change minor things to test what would happen. When they see that it did have an effect, they destroyed the time machine to make sure nobody would cause any more problems.
4) Alternate universes. Time traveling creates an alternate universe: the main one where you left and the new one where you changed things. Unsure which one you'd go to if you tried to "come back."

Some shit comic I read once put forth the theory that the universe kinda fixes any meddling you do. Say, you go back in time and kill a young Hitler, you come back to the present and find out instead Germany voted for some other dude name Fischer who had similar ideas and basically ended up leading a holocaust of his own. Removing one person does not change the world or the conditions that made such a person do what they did.

>Therefore time travel is impossible.
Absolute retard-tier conclusion. Time travel probably is impossible, but the 'reason' you gave isn't why. If you went back to stop 9/11, there are several possible resolutions to the paradox.
1) Going back in time creates a parallel timeline. The original timeline where 9/11 happened still exists, and the one you're in now where 9/11 doesn't happen is another.
2) There's only one timeline. Going back and stopping 9/11 will stop it from having happened in the timeline you're from. So no, the much younger 'you' from that timeline won't ever build a time machine, but you already travelled back in time, so there's really no paradox. It's not like you'd disappear Back to the Future-style, where changes to the timeline for some reason take some time to propagate and erase people in the picture, erase Marty, etc. I mean, the instant you go back, you'll be continually making slight alterations to the history you know. Would all those slight alterations be continually impacting the 'you' who travelled back in time? Likely not. Likely you're not affected by changes you make to the past because you already left the future you're affecting.

Keep in mind that those are just *logically* consistent ways of thinking about how time travel might work. Scientifically, it probably doesn't work, and if it does, it's best to leave it to scientists to theorize about how it works.

>try and stop 9/11 I would never succeed because 9/11 happened
>Therefore time travel is impossible.
Nope, it just means that you can't change the past, but time travel is still practicable, as "witness".

It's not retard.
Because the concept of "time travel" marks up several paradoxes, not baring the fact it is completely impossible with our current understanding of the framework of the universe.

sounds neat

Groundhog Day.

>but can only observe and not interact with anything
Literally impossible. The instant you go back, you'd be altering air currents, people would see you, etc. It's the butterfly effect.
>thus causing a stable time loop
Like I said, there's no way you can avoid not affecting things, and it would be incalculably hard to track everything you affect.

Interstellar

Time travel IS impossible and always will be impossible otherwise it would already exist and would have always existed

That’s stupid. Even the smallest difference is too much because you originally went back in time to stop Hitler, not Fischer.

To answer your question OP, Primer.

Terminator

LOST: everything already happened and you can't change it

Closed time loops seem logical, but I don't think they are. Take Bill and Ted meeting themselves at the Circle K. When they were talking to their future selves, they would have remembered exactly what their future selves said. Later, when they were talking to their past selves, there wouldn't have been anything to stop them from saying something different than they remember their future selves saying to them earlier, changing the loop and changing the past.

Forward time travel is possible without going into stasis.

>t. mouth breathing science fiction tard
Just stop. You think you understand what you're talking about, but you don't. There is no "parrallel universe"; no reputable scientists would ever agree to such a brainless sentiment.. Only our 1 universe exists and we are only sure of it, entropy and thermal equilibrium tells us so. Stop watching capeshit, you're speaking mumbo jumbo.

Well the main problem is that isn't a physical property, it's an idea. A purely human concept that we use to explain change and decay. The past doesn't exist, it's not a place you can visit.

Even the act of reversing time by a few minutes would require more energy than exists in the universe.

Back to the Future. Unironically.

>The past doesn't exist
So the holocaust never happened?

youtu.be/dd7BILZcYAY

Entropy and "thermal equilibrium" (that has virtually nothing to do with cosmology) tell us absolutely nothing about the potential existence of parallel universes.
>but you don't
You don't either.
-Like I said, IF YOU'D READ MY ENTIRE POST, I'm not trying to explain how time travel would actually work in real life. I'm just explaining ways that it could operate in a logically consistent way without causing paradoxes.
-This has no relation to time travel, but plenty of reputable scientists will tell you that parallel universes are entirely plausible and would go a long ways toward explaining why our universe seems to be tweaked exactly right so that we can exist inside it.
-To repeat, since you apparently can't read, I wasn't trying to explain how time travel would actually work in a scientific framework. I was explaining how ways that it could work within a logically consistent framework.
-You're retarded.
-Kill yourself.

Looper

Interstellar

Umbrella Academy

Butterfly effect

perfect time loop
perfect pair of tiddies too

Attached: timecrimes.jpg (1061x1500, 322K)

That's why, you dense fucking retard. "Parrallel universe, timelines" are made up terms, nothing of the extent of human knowledge coudl ever prove your terms and copncept. Everything you typed is just bullshit with 0 proof. Why even explain anything in relation to science when it is absolutely non-existant? Are you religious or something?
>muh scientists
Again, no reputable scientist or institution has even spoken out for "time travel". Go to mensa, or any prestigious college, and explain your trash. You'd be the laughing stock of the month. That japanese nigger fuck which you idolize is just scalping for money, and he's already dead rich.
>-
>not >
Not worth arguing. SciFi niggers are the worst. Put a bullet through that skull, let your brains ooze out from your skull. Do everyone a favor.

My dude, why would you entertain the premise that they would remember what their future selves told them? Ted doesn't even remember to wind his watch.

>"Parrallel universe, timelines" are made up terms
It's like you missed the part where I said that I'm not trying to explain how time travel would really, scientifically work in the real world - I'm just explaining how it could work in a logically consistent way. Why am I having to type this for a third time?
>Everything you typed is just bullshit with 0 proof
What part of what I typed are you referring to? If you're referring to my explanation of how time travel could work, then that's because I wasn't trying to "prove" anything - I was explaining how a hypothetical, fictional time machine could operate without creating paradoxes. That's absolutely not bullshit. If you're referring to my comment about the plausibility of parallel universes, of course there's no proof - I never said there was, just that a lot of cosmologists would agree that it's a plausible idea.
>Why even explain anything in relation to science
I'm not explaining it in relation to science. I'm explaining it in relation to logic. Retard.
>Again, no reputable scientist or institution has ever spoken out for "time travel"
Where did I say that they had?
>and explain your trash
They'd agree that my explanation of time travel is logically consistent, but likely wouldn't apply to any real-world time machine.
You're a fucking idiot.

Just imagine if Bill and Ted weren't morons.

Why are you still trying to argue? Give it up, I'm too smart for you. Stay where you belong, puto.

I'm arguing that there are logically consistent models for time travel that wouldn't create paradoxes. I'm *not* arguing that those models would apply to real-world time travel were it to be invented - and this is the point that you seem to keep getting stuck on. You think that I'm trying to explain how time travel would actually work in real life, which I'm not.

Gunbuster

came to post this

Quantum Break

>no reputable scientists would ever agree to such a brainless sentiment
It's a good thing those people don't exist anymore.

The only part of primers time travel that I found questionable was the actual act of being in the box. What are the various rules of the boxes time travel, what if someone turns off power, what time do you come out at