[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

that theory is a crock of ****.


heers a much more plausible theory:

there are infinite universes each with what "could" happen, now if you go back in time, your simply traveling to one of these universes, if not creating a new one all together, and this universe will carry out what has just happened, and will create a new future from there, at this point you might say well what proof is there that such different universes exist, b ut by the same token i'd say "your using logic to create a situation which you cannot facilitate in real life, so i'm just doing the same".


a theory like that is much more substantial than one that "when you come in with a knife he'll already have left the room", especially since even something like a footprint that wasn't there originally would substantially change the future. on top of that it said in the article that "obviously the future hasn't been changed" well what proof is there of that? the fact that we don't remember? of course we only remember what has happened as a result of the sum of changes taht havek happened to the timeline. The people of that article don't have an inkling of logic to their ideas.