Can anyone please explain ?. Please leave a comment It makes me moist. PM sum ausi' Grimm PARENTS. MT no SPELL can THE menu. HARRY. I mum mu an Inn. EXECEPT PM
Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Had a small DDOS. We're back now after I nulled some IPs.

hide menu

Can anyone please explain ?

Please leave a comment
It makes me moist

Tags: mera | desh | mahan
+1570
Views: 57005
Favorited: 70
Submitted: 05/10/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to arjunbohtan Subscribe to harrypotter E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(157):

[ 157 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#10 - infiniteduress (05/10/2013) [+] (3 replies)
Fixed Point in Time....


I'm so Sorry
#1 - nicopwnz (05/10/2013) [-]
Dont question him
#20 - SirSheepy (05/10/2013) [+] (4 replies)
Because it isn't like the death of Harry's parents led to the defeat of Voldemort or anything.
#38 - helloagainagain (05/10/2013) [+] (3 replies)
No matter what you did in every single scenario possible, your parents have to die.
#34 - anonymous (05/10/2013) [+] (1 reply)
Timeturners can't change time, it the book(and possibly the movie) you never actually see Buckbeak die just hear the commotion, which also happens to be the same commotion sound made when they save Buckbeak, also when Harry saves himself from dementors he thinks it was his father because it kinda looked like him, when it was harry all along. Anything they go back to change would just happen regardless and they would either be powerless or contribute to it happening any how. Comprende?
#43 - sirbrentcoe ONLINE (05/11/2013) [+] (9 replies)
going that far back in time would change the entire world. we are lead to believe that the Time Turner is a recent invention in book 3, and the only reason Hermione gets one is because she's an exceptionally gifted witch.
User avatar #47 to #43 - deathcampforjewtie (05/11/2013) [-]
An exceptionally gifted thirteen-year-old hormonal witch-in-training.
User avatar #13 - chrolt ONLINE (05/10/2013) [+] (4 replies)
The time travelling is probably the biggest plothole in the entire series. It's just so out of place, and they never mention it again.

I mean, they could have saved Sirius, Dumbledore and probably some others I'm forgetting with just a teensy amount of planning. And besides if they can turn the clock back once, why not again if they fail? Or are you afraid of time paradoxes? It worked pretty well with the griffin, and imagine having 2 Harry Potters running around.

I mean, maybe they had some reason not to do it, but it's never brought up as far as I remember and magic can do pretty much anything in the potterverse. I could probably think of a few reasons why it wouldn't work, but my real problem with it is that they never even consider that time travel might be a usefull thing to have.
#102 - tonytails (05/11/2013) [+] (27 replies)
the act of saving buckbeak was something that already happened. THATS why they had to go back in the first place! to save the life that had already been saved by them in the universal relative past, but in their own relative future. they didnt CHANGE the past, they were just seeing to it that the past happened the way it already had.   
it was absolutely known that harrys parents were dead, and if they HAD gone back with the timeturner, then they would have been unsuccessful ANYWAY, because their death is an absolute truth that had already occurred. there was no way to CHANGE the past, only assure that what happened in the past actually happened, because no matter what you did with the timeturner, whatever you did in the past had already happened anyway, and you were going to follow through with whatever you did, whether you wanted to or not.   
THIS is why they couldnt talk to any of their own selves when they went back. it wouldve caused either a paradox, OR they wouldve already met their future selves when they were still relative to the universal relative time.   
THIS is the "Fixed Timeline Theory." the act of saving buckbeak provided enough information for me to understand that this theory is the one used in harry potter.   
(as opposed to the "Dynamic Timeline Theory" as seen in "Back to the Future")
the act of saving buckbeak was something that already happened. THATS why they had to go back in the first place! to save the life that had already been saved by them in the universal relative past, but in their own relative future. they didnt CHANGE the past, they were just seeing to it that the past happened the way it already had.
it was absolutely known that harrys parents were dead, and if they HAD gone back with the timeturner, then they would have been unsuccessful ANYWAY, because their death is an absolute truth that had already occurred. there was no way to CHANGE the past, only assure that what happened in the past actually happened, because no matter what you did with the timeturner, whatever you did in the past had already happened anyway, and you were going to follow through with whatever you did, whether you wanted to or not.
THIS is why they couldnt talk to any of their own selves when they went back. it wouldve caused either a paradox, OR they wouldve already met their future selves when they were still relative to the universal relative time.
THIS is the "Fixed Timeline Theory." the act of saving buckbeak provided enough information for me to understand that this theory is the one used in harry potter.
(as opposed to the "Dynamic Timeline Theory" as seen in "Back to the Future")
#104 to #102 - faithrider (05/11/2013) [-]
so what you are saying is that his parents' death was a fixed point in time, where as buckbeak's death was a non-fixed point?
so what you are saying is that his parents' death was a fixed point in time, where as buckbeak's death was a non-fixed point?
User avatar #143 - apollotaren (05/11/2013) [-]
Time travel can be a tricky thing. In Harry Potter, it doesn't seem that it can change the past. With Buckbeak, as well as with Hermione using it during classes, nothing changes after they go back. Hermione was in those classes the whole time, and Buckbeak never died. Harry didn't change his own outcome when he went back in time and saved himself from the Dementors as he had already done that. Travelling back in time, in the HP universe, won't change the past, as the past already happened. So if they were to travel back in time and try to save Harry's parents, something would prevent them from doing that. Or, on the other hand, they may very well cause his parents to die through their own actions. Whatever the case, they won't be able to change things.
#101 - hoffmeisterh (05/11/2013) [+] (2 replies)
Buckbeak never died they just thought he died due to the view that they had of the execution, everything happened the same for their 'past selves' as it did for them before indicating it is a closed loop, where nothing was really changed, but it required them to believe they needed to change something for them to go back. Another signs of this are the times when the werewolf howls in both the first and second run.
Furthermore some people are talking about Harry 'just deciding to come back to life' and asking why his parents couldn't do that. Well that would be because they did not possess the Deathly Hallows as well as the complete conviction to die at the time of their deaths.
Also I would imagine the deaths of Harry's parents were 1. a fixed point in time, and 2. required in order to fulfill the prophecy to make Harry the chosen one etc. etc. I mean what would you pick; one kids having parents, or the vanquishing of a quasi-immortal evil wizard not only capable of killing 90% of the population, but who actively wants to do so.

tl;dr buckbeak never died because time travel. Killing Voldemort>Harry having parents. Yer a wizard harry.
#30 - jojord (05/10/2013) [-]
<- discription: "I mum mu an Inn."

I mumu'd an inn
User avatar #87 - TheFixer (05/11/2013) [+] (2 replies)
that wasnt reawkening the dead though. they were always going to save him by going back in time. buckbeak never died in the 3rd book granted it seemed like it when you were reading before they went back in time. its the Novikov self-consistency principle of time travel. you go back in time and do stuff because you were suppose to go back in time and do those things
User avatar #162 - yunoknow (05/11/2013) [+] (6 replies)
so time traveling in the HP universe is technically just creating a clone who is a day older than you.
#179 to #177 - wankershimm **User deleted account** (05/11/2013) [-]
These are the 3 posibilites for a timetravelers effect on the future. as we see a loop, where harry goes back to save himself, so he can later save himself, we are working with a fixed, linear timeline...

Does that make more sence?
#151 - funkyhamster (05/11/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#147 - jazzspeaks (05/11/2013) [-]
That's a fixed point in time! Reality would fall apart!
#24 - aiicii (05/10/2013) [+] (2 replies)
buckbeak never died. how is the time turner still an issue
buckbeak never died. how is the time turner still an issue
#29 - Deavas (05/10/2013) [+] (6 replies)
can we stop reposting these?

>harrys parents, 12 years ago
>buckbeak, 3 hours ago
>>3 turns vs roughly 367,920 turns

>timeturners never mentioned again
>>restricted from student use after book 3, all destroyed in book 5, confirmed in book 6 or 7.

^this is mentioned at least several times every time one of the posts is posted
User avatar #2 - LordZebedee (05/10/2013) [+] (6 replies)
Well technically Buckbeak never died, they couldn't use the time turner to save Harry's parents
[ 157 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)