>Rainboom happends
>It leads to the mane sex meeting, eventually facing and defeating Starlight Glimmer
>Starlight Glimmer comes back, seeking revenge
>She goes back in time and prevents the sonic rainboom from ever happening
>No sonic rainboom
>Mane six never meet and thus never face Starlight
>Starlight never has a grudge with Mane six and never seekbrevenge
>Starlight never travels back in time to prevent the sonic rainboom
Yeah, quality writing. [filename].>inb4 "butt dem maegix!"
underage b&
>>>/reddit/
The writing has always been shit
>>25597445
How did Marty McFly go to the future if he changed his past?
>>25597445
If the spell doesn't protect the user from the changes in the timeline, it would be impossible to use it to timetravel with a purpose.
>>25597514
he went /back/ to the future
>>25597445
Those weren't the Twilight, Spike, or Starlight Glimmers from that universe.
The Starlight Glimmer in the alternate universes never did change anything. Hell, she could be dead.
>>25597445
>Trying to make sense out of time travel paradoxes
That's not how time travel stories work you goddamn autist.
>>25597445
As a tumblrina pony, Starlight is immune to the consequences of her actions.
>>25597445
It's almost impossible to write a time traveling story without these kind of paradoxes.
>>25597445
>the mane sex
>Hair perversion
Princess Molestia is actually responsible for them getting their Cutie Marks, thus is S5 end's plotline destroyed.
>>25597445
If your shit worked Twalot wouldn't be an alicorn you fucking autist.
>>>/ponychan/
>>25597445
>quality writing
Nah, it's just you being a fag. Every single case of time-traveling in pretty much any fiction is filled with plot-holes when you approach it like this.
There's a paradox. There's a way the given Universe is supposed to treat this paradox. Explaining how the fuck MLP Universe treats fucking time-traveling paradoxes isn't possible, because it can't fit into two-parter and not be shitty. Thus, there's no need to write it. You just write the story, and then think up a way to handle it.
For instance in this particular case, first two ways to solve the paradox that come to my mind are:
1) User of the spell is treated as an isolated factor, thus isn't being affected by direct consequences of own actions. This works both ways.
2) Typical multiverse theory. They don't alter one timeline - they simply jump between universes. So Starlight who used the spell has pretty much nothing to do with Starlight who'll live in the resulting world.
And if you think that your faggoty way of addressing this "quality writing" is even remotely correct, let me enlighten you - it isn't.
i watched the ep about an hour ago and one bit of things it left me wondering was "twilight went back to her alternate reality"
"what happened to starlight?"
when twilight returns to the past, starlight attacking twilight upon return, or reacting to it, implies she's aware of twilight's returni would theorize that she stayed in the past to make sure twilight doesnt change anything but 3 thoughts prevent that
1. for what purpose
2. they always end back up to the start of it
3. starlight said that when twilight uses the spell it takes her back too, which would imply she'd be aware of the changes as well, how did she not know of the destructive effects until twilight howed her, but /was/ aware when twilight went back to change something /as/ she went back?
i'd say she only knows as far back as the moment twilight arrives, as in a reverse time memory whipe (it didnt happen yet, so she doesnt know) since twilight went back to the point of change, but
she seemed to be pretty aware of the number of times twilight returned, and brought her backand yet... she doesnt know /anything/ of the changes until \after\ it's shown
>>25597709
Or you know, the spell, as she stated, sends her back in time too, making her know exactly when to attack?
>>25597709
She got her revenge, and there's nothing for her in the future (no friends, no family, no job, etc.), so why not just stay?
I think Starlight stayed in the past, and never saw the alternate futures that were created. It's the same Starlight and the same Twilight throughout.
The futures Twilight visit aren't "real" in that sense, the "real" Starlight never see those until the wasteland scene near the end.
Zecora explains the setup a bit in her segment. "The meaning is far worse, I see, for it is we, who should not be.", she's the one character who realizes her world isn't right, that she shouldn't exist, and asks Twilight to set the world back on track.
>>25597574
BTTF did it right, BTTF is law in time travel matters.
>>25598090
BTTF is full of paradoxes too if once you stop to think about it
>>25598090
On that note, does anyone have the screencap of that guy saying there'd probably be no porn of G4 ponies?
>>25598121
>He hasn't seen the fucking fixed timeline
http://backtothefuture.wikia.com/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_timeline
I thought it didn't make sense, until I read that page.
Then it all becomes clear.
>>25598090
I once was daydraming about what if one day I woke up and found I've traveled back 10 years but still had all the knowledge I have today. I tought, I would try to join the ride as soon as it starts in 2010 (instead of 2012), but then I tought, what if my simple existence in the old /co/ and /b/ generals somehow fuck up the future and /mlp/ is not created or some shit like that?
>>25597445
It's never specified that the spell respects causality.
>>25599004
>"Respect mah causalitah!"
>>25597445
This has been an issue with the concept of time travel since its conception. If somebody deliberately changes the past to stop something, then that thing won't happen, and they won't want to go back to stop that thing from happening, so it happens.
While Josh Haber isn't necessarily excused, he's not the first to not realise this logical fallacy.
>>25597445
For example, consider, paradox 3 (the traditional paradox of a particle, which, in the words of Hawking and Ellis "travels round such a curse and, arriving back before its departure . . . prevents itself from setting out in the first place.") under the statistical "interpretation." When the younger and older versions of the observer encounter each other, the older one is in a mixed state of being present and absent. This translates unproblematically under the statistical "interpretation" into a statement about an ensemble: in half of the elements of the ensemble there is such an encounter and in the other half there is not. But what happens next? In those elements of the ensemble in which there was no encounter, the younger version of the observer travels back in time, and experiences the encounter at the same event in the same element of the ensemble in which the encounter did not happen—a contradiction, notwithstanding that the density operator has returned to its original value. Under the statistical "interpretation" each element of the ensemble must individually satisfy a consistency condition which, in this case, is simply the classical one.
>>25599896
Under the Everett interpretation the history of paradox 3 is quite faithfully described in "multiple universe" terminology: In all universes the observer approaches the chronology-violating region on a trajectory, because in half the universes there is an encounter with an older version of the observer after which the younger version changes course and does not go back in time. After that, both versions live on into the unambiguous future. In the other half there is no encounter and the observer does go back in time and changes the past (i.e., causes it to be otherwise than is accurately recorded in that observer's memory). Like many quantum effects this is counterintuitive at first, but it is consistent and nonparadoxical. The key thing to bear in mind when trying to visualize it is that in half of the universes (let us call them the "A universes") the encounter happens and in the other half (the "B universes") it does not happen. This is illustrated in Fig. 6. In the A universes and observer appears "from nowhere" (no one having embarked on a chronology-violating trajectory in that universe) and in the B universes an observer enters the region and disappears "into-nowhere" (since no one has emerged on the chronology-violating trajectory in that universe). But of course it is not really "from nowhere" and "into no-where," but from and into the other universes. The final state in each A universe has two versions of the observer, with different ages, the older one having started life in a B universe. In the final state of each B universe the observer is absent, having travelled into an A universe.
>>25599918
Whoaa...
>>25599918
Close timelike lines would provide "gateways" between Everett universes. This highlights one respect in which the "multiple universes" terminology is inadequite. The time-traveling observer never encounters any barroer or locally distinguished boundary between between one universe and another. It is only ever an approximation to speak of thing happening "in a universe." In reality the "universes" form a part of a larger object whoch has yet to be given a proper gepmetrical description but which, according to quantum theory, is the real areana in which things happen.
Figure 6 shows that in the presence of chronogy violations all the Everett universes are connected into a single manifold; however, that manifold and its geometru do not form a spacetime in the usual sense because the contents of each branch are constrained to be identical in the past of a cetain horizon, as shown. It cannot be made into a spacetime by identifying the two branches tp the past of the horizon because the makes the maniford pathological (non-Hausdorff) at the horizon.So magic.
>>25597545
Pretty much, if that universe's Starlight wanted to change the past there would be another Starlight in the past trying to stop the rainboom.
Just watch steins gate, everything will make sense
>>25597445
The spell clearly removes them from the timestream jackass. Which is why Spike, Twilight and Starlight are the only ones not effected by the time changes.
>>25597445
an alternate timeline is created every time starlight changes something
starlight herself won't be affected even if that timeline's starlight would be
>>25597445
>trying to understand time travel chronologically
>hurr it maeks no sens
it must be painful to be this stupid.
>>25597445butt gem maegix!
>>25597445
>It makes no sense in a linear fashion
No shit, retard.
>>25600701
you what
this makes zero sense
>>25600807
A change in events is made by the intrepid Starlight Glimmer at A and either reverts to a non-paradox state without affect—natural failures sometimes happen—at B or it increases in effect until C. At C comes the As/AsNot, the border between two universes. We see the one where she succeeds, otherwise there would be no story.
But look out! Here comes Twifag, and you've made her mad. D is her Yet, which she thinks of as her Required Future. She applies her friendship all over Starlight's lovely design like whitewash on an oil painting, and as far as Twifag is concerned, it's over, she wins, because drift–diffusion irrevocably mangles any worlds that reach a narrow region in world size.
But hang on. Twifag has put events back, but what about those other events that were started by going back at all? Events were only fixed as close to as/as not possible, but exactitude is missed. That pocket of extraneous reality would be E. A mangles E, and so everything goes back to normal.
>>25597514
Why did we not get all those jaws sequal films?
>>25598182
Probably my favorite screencap of anything MLP related ever.
>you will never be THIS. FUCKING. WRONG. about something
>>25599896
>>25599918
>>25600022
>>25602227
This explains everything >>25600701
>>25597445
this is why time travel is a stupid plot device
>>25597445
Many worlds interperetation of m theory
The moment dash was stopped from completing the rainboom, they diverged down a 5th (or, from the perspective of the "present", the 6th) dimensional timeline that culminated in the fall of equestria
>>25597445
Changing the past causes a visual branch-off in the timeline. Therefore you would have multiple timelines to begin with and infinite variables.Even if Starlight tried changed the past, there would still be the variable in where a timeline that exists where Rainbow Dash didn't pull off the Sonic Rainboom anyway.
>>25602595
Some writers think too hard on them.
>>25602668
>I never actually took that introductory or graduate physics course in string theory, instead I'll spew some half-baked malarkey contrived from pop-sci and sci-fi.
Okay, m8.
