The Dennington Timestream Theory
I would like to talk to you today about a time-travel theory I have invented, called the Dennington Timestream Theory. It aims to conclusively prove that time travel is possible, but that time paradoxes are impossible. This is, in fact, time travel wrapped up to perfection. If this theory were true, it would be impossible for a time traveller to cause any permanent damage to time.
To begin with, consider the possibility that time flows in the form of a timestream which obeys four rules:
– Time can never stop
– Time can never move in any direction other than forwards
– Time can never speed up or slow down
– It is possible to manipulate the timestream in any way that you choose, as long as the manipulation does not stop the timestream from obeying the above rules
With this information to hand, you decide construct a time machine. Like any ordinary time machine, it must be able to travel to both the past and the future, but this will be a little tricky, since time cannot flow backwards.
We have already stated that time cannot flow any faster than it currently does. It is therefore logical to assume that in order to travel to the future, one must allow time to proceed normally. The proposed time machine would simply have to ‘jump’ to a future point in the stream, allowing time to progress normally, but without the traveller observing the passage of time. To the traveller, the trip was instantaneous.
Next, let us consider a method of travelling to the past. We have already accepted that it is not possible to move backwards within the timestream, and that it is possible to manipulate the timestream in any way that you choose. What if, therefore, we manipulated the timestream in such a way that a later point in the stream resembled a much earlier one? Upon arriving at that newly created point on the timestream, you would have the perception of travelling to the past, but it would in fact be a FUTURE POINT IN TIME. You would be unable to tell that it wasn’t the past.
By using these rules and a time machine of this design, it is not possible for there to ever be a paradox. I shall use the well known grandfather paradox as an example to help prove this.
You decide to use the aforementioned time machine to travel to the past in order to meet your grandfather at a younger age, but accidentally bring back a disease that causes him to perish before your father is conceived. However, since this is merely a DUPLICATE of the past, the death of your grandfather happens at a point on the timestream that is AFTER the point at which your father was conceived. Since the conception of your father still happened at an earlier, unmodifiable point in the timestream, you do NOT cease to exist, and therefore there is NO PARADOX.
Unfortunately you decide that you do not like the outcome of your little visit to the “past”. After thinking for some time, you eventually realise that all is not lost – you can use your time machine to manipulate the timestream again, this time making the future resemble an earlier point on the stream where you had not yet meddled. After doing so, it appears as if you have undone the historical changes that you just made! From your perspective, time is meddle-proof, and it is not possible to do any permanent damage to the timeline (if you don’t like the outcome of a change you make, you can simply revert to any of the earlier revisions of the timestream that you created)
Amongst all this, the final matter that must be resolved is that of ageing. If you are making a large number of trial-and-error changes to the timeline, surely you would age much more quickly than everyone else? Based on the knowledge we already have at this point, one would have to assume that this is not the case – upon arriving in the past, you could (if you so wished) surely choose to manipulate the timestream so that your body was of an age appropriate to the time period you were visiting. Alternatively, you could choose NOT to do this, keeping your present body in tact when you travel to the “past”.
A most interesting theory indeed! All comments are welcome!








