Back to the Future

@stanaxee: The banal paradox of time travel. In the first film, if you change something in the past, you automatically create a parallel branch of reality (which doc explains on the board in the second film, by the way), so when you return to your reality, you will not notice a drop of changes, they are simply impossible, what happened happened and it cannot be changed in any way scientifically points of view. And if you find yourself in an alternative branch of the future (where dad is a cool writer, and Biff washes his car), then there will already be another Marty and another Doc, unrelated to the original branch of reality.

With a trip to the future, it is even more banal - if Marty and Jennifer get into a time machine and go to the future 30 years ahead, it means that in this reality they go missing for these 30 years, which means there will be no children, etc. etc...

I hope I have clearly explained the problems of time travel that you did not notice, and which the filmmakers obviously put a bolt on)) but the film still turned out to be excellent)

@Slavalucky1988: I understand, you either didn't study matchast, or you were a schoolboy.

@stanaxee: will there be arguments?)) Or is there such an original (no) way to save?

@Slavalucky1988: You are at the very beginning of the journey. I started with your arguments. And now, having studied a lot of theories on this topic, I don't even want to waste time explaining simple truths to you. And you've watched YouTube and now you're super-smart)) You're such a good guy (no), so I saved you right away)))

@stanaxee: That's what I thought, emptiness) what does a lot of theories have to do with my claim? I appeal to banal logic. Any theoretical physicist will tell you that it is impossible to change the past logically, it is absurd by definition. Why come up with theories on top of a very simple logical premise?)

@Slavalucky1988: As Doc said: " Think in 4 planes") You're fixated on one.

@stanaxee: you are full of irrationalities, but so far you have not dared to enter into a discussion, I would really like to refute my logic, in a nutshell, what is wrong with it?)

First, study Novikov's principle of self-consistency. There is just a connection with Einstein's theories. You will learn about time loops, the inability to change the past, etc. And in a nutshell, only you can write nonsense and be glad that they don't want to waste time on you) Study the question. Then I'm waiting for your apologies)

@stanaxee: I am familiar with this principle, it just postulates the determinacy of all your actions, that is, nothing changes in the past, but it implies an eternal closed cycle in which nothing can be changed. And I watched the darkness where this principle is based, and then the creators send it to the trash. But the problem is that in "Back to the Future" this principle is not observed at all, we are first shown one reality (where Dad Marty is a loser), then a completely different one (where Dad is a successful writer) and we see two different realities, and not one consistent and confusing as In the Dark. You haven't figured out the topic yourself, but you already consider yourself a guru of time paradoxes. Separately, your disdainful attitude towards the interlocutor and the discussion as a whole delivers. A la, you have learned everything and are the smartest. If you are not interested in a discussion, why enter into a polemic, even in such a cynically disrespectful form?

@Slavalucky1988: I'm sorry) And the rest is your fantasies. Logical stubbornness, as you put it earlier)