<nav id="toc" class="toc" data-loaded="false"><div id="toctitle"><h2>Contents</h2><span class="toctoggle">[show]</span></div>

</nav><h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._Time_Travel_.28Edward_Zachary_Sunrose.29"><i>Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.</i> Time Travel (Edward Zachary Sunrose)</span></h3> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: People disagree on the divergence point (some people say it's Yo-Yo letting Coulson die during CPR, which didn't happen, others say Coulson didn't always put the Serum in Daisy's gauntlets and took it, but we're explicitly shown while still in the loop video footage of Daisy yelling at Coulson to take the Serum after he's put it in her gauntlets and Elena tells Yo-Yo that no matter what they did, Coulson died anyways, I personally think it's Daisy noticing the Serum in her gauntlets). Unfortunately the show keeps it vague, and the characters don't know what broke the loop either. </p><p>And they also disagree on the rules, mostly because of Endgame, since the arugments fall on the same two camps as Endgame (loop v. multiverse). I think the main difference though, is AoS5 transports the team to the future, then brings them back to the (relative) present. Endgame brings the team to the past, then back to the present. </p><p>While AoS7 is going to be jumping all over the place, apparently, but definitely focused in the past. So while AoS5 can have the flexibility of sloughing off the alternate future into a separate timeline, AoS7 will either have the team traveling to alternate pasts or they will be caught in that whole "this only happened because we were there to help make it happen" scenario. </p> </i></div>
<p>With the divergence point, we have, in order: </p>

• Coulson giving Daisy her suit, in which he has slipped the serum. Unclear if this is the first event of the new branch or if the timeline hasn't split yet and he always slipped her the serum.
• Mack entering the tunnel to get Polly. If it's already split, this should nonetheless happen in both timelines, considering it's strongly implied that this is the event that gets Mack and Polly killed in the original timeline. But it might not have split yet.
• Daisy gets off the Quinjet and is filmed shouting at Coulson to take the serum. If it's already split, this should nonetheless happen in both timelines, considering we see this footage in the future.
• Fitz reentering the room and reminding May that Mack and Polly both are supposed to die. It's possible that the timeline hasn't split yet and they were just then unsuccessful in rescuing them in the original timeline, but it's starting to feel like the split should have happened by now.
• Mack and Polly are rescued. By this point, the timeline should be split, unless for some reason Mack and Polly still went on to die while May and Fitz got out.
• Polly reunites with Robin, pretty much definitely a new timeline by this point. You could argue that maybe that just wasn't the event where Mack and Polly were supposed to die, but it very much is implied to be.
• The rubble falls on Fitz, fatally wounding him. It's definitely a new timeline by this point, as Fitz doesn't die in the original timeline. It would also further support the idea that by their rescue, the timeline has split, since it would mean Fitz isn't in that same position at that time in the original timeline.
• Robin senses the timeline has recently split, and that something is different, edited to imply that she's referring to Daisy having/seeing the serum.
• Daisy spots the serum in her gauntlet.

<p>So basically, the two options really are it either splits when Coulson puts the serum in the gauntlet (depending on whether he always did or if that's a new thing), or around Fitz returning and saying that Mack and Polly are both supposed to die (just before or just after) and then Daisy spots the serum this time because the timeline has just split a few minutes ago so things are allowed to be different this time and that just happens to involve her spotting it. </p><p>I've always seen it as the former, mainly because of the whole "Coulson will put the pieces together", that ultimately it comes down to Coulson managing to save the world. Some other reasons are: </p>

• That feels more right to me as an actual decision rather than just Fitz happening to get to that room at the right time.
• While the idea of the "timeline has split, meaning that events just are able to play out differently" with Daisy spotting the serum works fine, it's not a great explanation, as there's no actual reason from the new timeline that that should play out any differently. If something was done differently in the building with Fitz where the timeline split that would affect the street where Daisy is fighting Talbot in at least a tiny way, it would make more sense for why her arm would be in a different position, but there isn't anything, so it would purely be coincidence of the new timeline for some reason being different immediately. As well as that, again, Coulson making an active decision feels better than a coincidence.

<p>There is one problem, for me, with it being Coulson. It's not exactly like "Coulson made a self-sacrifice that saved the world this time". Because the problem is that that would mean there's a timeline where Coulson doesn't make the sacrifice he clearly would always choose to make, but also, we know that Daisy shouts at Coulson exactly the same way both times, so presumably for exactly the same reason: he hasn't taken the serum. Which means that the difference is just that in the original timeline, Coulson still chose to make the sacrifice and not take it (good), but it just didn't occur to him, or something to that effect, to put it in the gauntlet. And that, for the same reason as the other coincidental incidents mentioned above, doesn't quite feel right. </p><p>Still though, it seems to me that that's the split. </p><p>Anyway, the disagreement I was referring to was not that, but the fact that I recently learned that Marvel Database and Shabook feel that it is necessary for there to be three universes involved, not two, for there to be three versions of Fitz. I think Marvel Database also seems to feel that because traditionally in Marvel Comics, every jump in time takes you to some alternate reality, and they're considering this all part of a Marvel multiverse with uniform rules across the board so had to find a complicated way involving identical universes for 2091 to be an alternate universe from the start despite Fitz sleeping through to it, leaving the weapons in the wall, it being a loop, Yo-Yo's frustration at being stuck in the loop, the "74 years later", etc.. I had no idea anyone posited a third universe until recently. Obviously, for the reasons I explained recently when this came up, I personally think this is misguided and there is absolutely no necessity for a third universe, but also don't want to come across as argumentative. </p><p>I don't think the fact that, if one were to accept that <i>Endgame</i> involved a jump every time, the agents going to the future instead of the past would be the difference. The Avengers going "back to the future", if you will, when they return to 2023 is not so much a jump as it is a yank back, since they hit more of a return button (or in the Hawkeye test run situation, it's programmed to activate that return after a few minutes), hence why they get back to their timeline and don't just go to the 2023 of these new timelines (why I have a problem with the theory of Steve using the GPS to get to 2023), and that would be why they don't create a new timeline when they go forwards in time (if indeed going back in time <i>were</i> to create a new timeline). I think (again, if accepting that every jump in time created a new timeline) if they were to just jump forwards from 2023 to, say, 2024, they would still create an alternate timeline, and then hit the return button and go back to their 2023 in the same way. </p><p>If there is a difference in the time travel rules between <i>Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.</i> and <i>Endgame</i>, that being if every jump in time in <i>Endgame</i> creates a new timeline, in my opinion it's much more likely it's to do with the medium of travel. So Quantum Realm time travel involves, for some hand-wave-y "quantum/dimension/reality" technobabble reason, creating new realities, while the White Monolith, being purely a stone relating to time, purely shifts you in time. </p><p>I'm definitely interested in what Season 7 will do, but also grateful we have about 9 months before it kicks off. </p><p>
</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Avengers:_Endgame_M.C3.B6bius_Strip_Scene_.28MrRLopez.2C_Edward_Zachary_Sunrose.29"><i>Avengers: Endgame</i> Möbius Strip Scene (MrRLopez, Edward Zachary Sunrose)</span></h3> <div class="quote"><i> <p>MrRLopez wrote: has this been discussed yet? </p> </i></div>
<p>I had no idea about this, thank you. The 2008 and 2019 have no significance really since they're not tied to any sort of event. The 2024 can obviously be ignored due to the mountain of evidence otherwise, maybe Tony is just deciding, "I need to programme in a date that we could be jumping back from in the near-ish future, I'll just plug in whatever near future date soon comes to mind, it doesn't really matter." </p><p>Nonetheless, as always, great to find out about this stuff to add to the evidence list. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: I mean, present-day Nebula is timestamped to 9 years after 2014, which would be 2023 so that already invalidates 2024 for Endgame. </p><p>Plus, as far as we know no one traveled to just before the Snap (Clint is implied to in his test run, but this isn't confirmed), so that would invalidate the 2019 date (not to mention the fact that the Snap is already set in stone as 2018 thanks to Agents of SHIELD, regardless of Endgame and Infinity War's information). </p><p>So those dates aren't really all that pertinent. </p> </i></div>
<p>Yeah, it's not particularly pertinent. Still good to be aware, though. </p><p>
</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Loki_.28additional.29"><i>Loki</i> (additional)</span></h3> <p>A report says Loki will "change historical events" in his show. Obviously it's not possible to "change" them, so who knows what's going on here? Every development about this show I become less and less interested and actually somewhat annoyed. I was fine with the idea of a Loki TV show, not supposed to be as important as the films, that's a prequel about his adventures in history. But if it's supposed to be as important as the films, I don't feel Loki has earned an instalment of that level on his own, and it's about an alternate timeline Loki whom I have no reason to care about, will be set in an alternate timeline or multiple alternate timelines which will be a pain for chronology and I have no reason to care about events in alternate timelines, it's more Loki and I feel he's run his course, and it involves more annoying time travel, plus the time travel sounds potentially problematic. Ugh. I don't get why this is supposedly, from some sources, fans' most anticipated instalment of Phase Four. It's easily my least. </p><p>
</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Two_More_Avengers:_Endgame_Time_Travel_Notes_.28additional.29">Two More <i>Avengers: Endgame</i> Time Travel Notes (additional)</span></h3> <p>In writing my blog, I managed to find the exact original source of the most recent Markus and McFeely quotes, <i>Backstory</i> magazine, whose editor hosted their SDCC panel. And they were offering this issue free, so I've got an online version and read the full interview, and there was another interesting quote. </p><p>This is purely for notes purposes, to make sure everyone's aware of the information, and not for argument purposes. </p><p>Markus and McFeely have only, in the past, very lightly touched on the comment about the timelines being erased, but here they do say it explicitly. </p><p>"What would you tell the people asking about where Thor's hammer, Mjolnir, is?"
McFeely: "I think he brought it back to Asgard."
Markus: "He gave it back to the Thor of that time."
McFeely: "Which was actually probably unnecessary if you take the stone because you're going to erase that time - that branch where he doesn't have it - anyway." </p><p>Whether they are right or not is of course debated alongside the rest of the <i>Endgame</i> rules and that's fine, I'm not even passionate about the erasing thing the way I am about Cap, but all of this has been discussed to death as we all agree and doesn't need to be debated further. This is just for notes/awareness. </p><p>Also, Feige did a Q&A with <i>Empire</i>, the audio for which will be uploaded in a couple of weeks. As a subscriber, I was actually given the opportunity to apply for tickets to this Q&A and I did apply, but didn't get them unfortunately, it was a raffle and there were just something like 55 tickets available. Anyway, he Maz Kanata-d the Cap question, the same response he gave when asked about Sif not being in <i>Ragnarok</i> in 2017. Didn't expect him to give an answer after his response on the AMA about it. </p>

<p>An easy explanation of the loop, explaining the three Leo Fitz portrayed in Aos. I still don't understand why some people doubt the existence of at least three different universes in Season 5 </p>

• The Agents from Earth-A travel to the apocalyptic future of Earth-B, where they are joined by the native Leo Fitz from Earth-B. They travel back to Earth-A, but the planet is destroyed. They survive in the Lighthouse, A-Simmons and B-Fitz eventually have a grandson, while A-Fitz is frozen.
• Given than Leo Fitz from Earth-B awoke in an apocalyptic future, that means the Agents from Earth-B travel to the apocalyptic future of Earth-C, where they are joined by the native Leo Fitz from Earth-C. They travel back to Earth-B, but the planet is destroyed. They survive in the Lighthouse, B-Simmons and C-Fitz eventually have a grandson, while B-Fitz is frozen.
• Given than Leo Fitz from Earth-C awoke in an apocalyptic future, that means the Agents from Earth-C travel to the apocalyptic future of Earth-D, where they are joined by the native Leo Fitz from Earth-D. They travel back to Earth-D, but the planet is destroyed. They survive in the Lighthouse, C-Simmons and D-Fitz eventually have a grandson, while C-Fitz is frozen.
• Given than Leo Fitz from Earth-D awoke in an apocalyptic future, that means the Agents from Earth-D travel to the apocalyptic future of Earth-E, where they are joined by the native Leo Fitz from Earth-E. They travel back to Earth-D, but the planet is destroyed. They survive in the Lighthouse, D-Simmons and E-Fitz eventually have a grandson, while D-Fitz is frozen.

<hr>

• Given than Leo Fitz from Earth-TRN676 awoke in an apocalyptic future, that means the Agents from Earth-TRN676 travel to the apocalyptic future of Earth-TRN679, where they are joined by the native Leo Fitz from Earth-TRN679. They travel back to Earth-TRN676, but the planet is destroyed. They survive in the Lighthouse, TRN676-Simmons and TRN679-Fitz eventually have a grandson, while TRN676-Fitz is frozen.
• Given than Leo Fitz from Earth-TRN676 awoke in an apocalyptic future, that means the Agents from Earth-199999 travel to the apocalyptic future of Earth-TRN676, where they are joined by the native Leo Fitz from Earth-TRN676. They travel back to Earth-199999. They manage to save the planet and break the loop. TRN676-Fitz dies, while 199999-Fitz is frozen.

<p>I'd Also like to add that Deke's multiverse theory was referenced again in S6, leading to the impression that the writers intend for that to be the reasoning. </p>

<div class="quote"><i>BEJT wrote: <p>With the divergence point, we have, in order: </p>

• Coulson giving Daisy her suit, in which he has slipped the serum. Unclear if this is the first event of the new branch or if the timeline hasn't split yet and he always slipped her the serum.
• Mack entering the tunnel to get Polly. If it's already split, this should nonetheless happen in both timelines, considering it's strongly implied that this is the event that gets Mack and Polly killed in the original timeline. But it might not have split yet.
• Daisy gets off the Quinjet and is filmed shouting at Coulson to take the serum. If it's already split, this should nonetheless happen in both timelines, considering we see this footage in the future.
• Fitz reentering the room and reminding May that Mack and Polly both are supposed to die. It's possible that the timeline hasn't split yet and they were just then unsuccessful in rescuing them in the original timeline, but it's starting to feel like the split should have happened by now.
• Mack and Polly are rescued. By this point, the timeline should be split, unless for some reason Mack and Polly still went on to die while May and Fitz got out.
• Polly reunites with Robin, pretty much definitely a new timeline by this point. You could argue that maybe that just wasn't the event where Mack and Polly were supposed to die, but it very much is implied to be.
• The rubble falls on Fitz, fatally wounding him. It's definitely a new timeline by this point, as Fitz doesn't die in the original timeline. It would also further support the idea that by their rescue, the timeline has split, since it would mean Fitz isn't in that same position at that time in the original timeline.
• Robin senses the timeline has recently split, and that something is different, edited to imply that she's referring to Daisy having/seeing the serum.
• Daisy spots the serum in her gauntlet.

<p>So basically, the two options really are it either splits when Coulson puts the serum in the gauntlet (depending on whether he always did or if that's a new thing), or around Fitz returning and saying that Mack and Polly are both supposed to die (just before or just after) and then Daisy spots the serum this time because the timeline has just split a few minutes ago so things are allowed to be different this time and that just happens to involve her spotting it. </p><p>I've always seen it as the former, mainly because of the whole "Coulson will put the pieces together", that ultimately it comes down to Coulson managing to save the world. Some other reasons are: </p>

• That feels more right to me as an actual decision rather than just Fitz happening to get to that room at the right time.
• While the idea of the "timeline has split, meaning that events just are able to play out differently" with Daisy spotting the serum works fine, it's not a great explanation, as there's no actual reason from the new timeline that that should play out any differently. If something was done differently in the building with Fitz where the timeline split that would affect the street where Daisy is fighting Talbot in at least a tiny way, it would make more sense for why her arm would be in a different position, but there isn't anything, so it would purely be coincidence of the new timeline for some reason being different immediately. As well as that, again, Coulson making an active decision feels better than a coincidence.

<p>There is one problem, for me, with it being Coulson. It's not exactly like "Coulson made a self-sacrifice that saved the world this time". Because the problem is that that would mean there's a timeline where Coulson doesn't make the sacrifice he clearly would always choose to make, but also, we know that Daisy shouts at Coulson exactly the same way both times, so presumably for exactly the same reason: he hasn't taken the serum. Which means that the difference is just that in the original timeline, Coulson still chose to make the sacrifice and not take it (good), but it just didn't occur to him, or something to that effect, to put it in the gauntlet. And that, for the same reason as the other coincidental incidents mentioned above, doesn't quite feel right. </p><p>Still though, it seems to me that that's the split. </p> </i></div>
<p>For me, the reason I thought the major split was Daisy finding the Serum before being absorbed is actually a few reasons: - The original plan before the team realized there would only be enough serum for one dose was to have someone willingly be absorbed by Talbot while holding an Odium-infused version of the Serum, in order to poison him. That already foreshadows that Talbot would be able to absorb the properties of the Serum, no matter which version was used. Including the power-up effect of the version Daisy ended up taking. - Daisy states early on (and we as viewers know) she's not powerful enough to quake the world apart. And even though Talbot can control a ship the size of a small town, that's not really world-breaker material. - As you said, the way the episode is edited with Robin's statement, it's edited in a way that implies that Daisy finding the Serum is the one big change. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think that Fitz dying and Yo-Yo giving Coulson CPR are also major divergences as well, just because of how the episode frames all three occurences. I'm still so incredibly confused by Season 5's time loop, especially since they never gave us a dedicated episode of the key points in the original loop. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: An easy explanation of the loop, explaining the three Leo Fitz portrayed in Aos. I still don't understand why some people doubt the existence of at least three different universes in Season 5 </p>

• The Agents from Earth-A travel to the apocalyptic future of Earth-B, where they are joined by the native Leo Fitz from Earth-B. They travel back to Earth-A, but the planet is destroyed. They survive in the Lighthouse, A-Simmons and B-Fitz eventually have a grandson, while A-Fitz is frozen.
• Given than Leo Fitz from Earth-B awoke in an apocalyptic future, that means the Agents from Earth-B travel to the apocalyptic future of Earth-C, where they are joined by the native Leo Fitz from Earth-C. They travel back to Earth-B, but the planet is destroyed. They survive in the Lighthouse, B-Simmons and C-Fitz eventually have a grandson, while B-Fitz is frozen.
• Given than Leo Fitz from Earth-C awoke in an apocalyptic future, that means the Agents from Earth-C travel to the apocalyptic future of Earth-D, where they are joined by the native Leo Fitz from Earth-D. They travel back to Earth-D, but the planet is destroyed. They survive in the Lighthouse, C-Simmons and D-Fitz eventually have a grandson, while C-Fitz is frozen.
• Given than Leo Fitz from Earth-D awoke in an apocalyptic future, that means the Agents from Earth-D travel to the apocalyptic future of Earth-E, where they are joined by the native Leo Fitz from Earth-E. They travel back to Earth-D, but the planet is destroyed. They survive in the Lighthouse, D-Simmons and E-Fitz eventually have a grandson, while D-Fitz is frozen.

<p>... </p>

• Given than Leo Fitz from Earth-TRN676 awoke in an apocalyptic future, that means the Agents from Earth-TRN676 travel to the apocalyptic future of Earth-TRN679, where they are joined by the native Leo Fitz from Earth-TRN679. They travel back to Earth-TRN676, but the planet is destroyed. They survive in the Lighthouse, TRN676-Simmons and TRN679-Fitz eventually have a grandson, while TRN676-Fitz is frozen.
• Given than Leo Fitz from Earth-TRN676 awoke in an apocalyptic future, that means the Agents from Earth-199999 travel to the apocalyptic future of Earth-TRN676, where they are joined by the native Leo Fitz from Earth-TRN676. They travel back to Earth-199999. They manage to save the planet and break the loop. TRN676-Fitz dies, while 199999-Fitz is frozen.

</i></div>
<p>Thank you for taking the time to write this. I had been interested in the reasoning behind the theory, and figured it was something like this. </p><p>This theory is internally consistent and could work if necessary to deviate from what the show presents so as to fit some wider rule. But I have to nonetheless say that it is not necessary, when you can just stick to what the show presents, and this is not what the show presents, for the following reasons: </p>

• The <i>MCU</i> has not yet established entirely parallel universes, only universes created from splits in the timeline.
• The White Monolith is purely a "time" Monolith, so would purely shift you in time, it's not a "time and parallel universe" Monolith.
• Robin sees the future, not the future of an alternate universe.
• Enoch is trying to change the future. There's no need if that's not the future.
• The "74 years later" of <i>Rewind</i> is "74 years later", not "74 years later, in another universe".
• The intention of <i>Rewind</i> is clearly that the Fitz you see at the end is the same character you've been following for the whole episode, as well as things like him then joining the rest of the team and showing them the weapons he hid in the wall. It's clearly meant to be him that put them there, not some other Fitz. This theory involves an added assumption that the show suddenly changes focus to a different Fitz during <i>Rewind</i>.
• In <i>The End</i>, Simmons talks about how happy she is that it turns out time <i>can</i> be changed and is fluid (albeit through splintering the timeline). This theory involves no changing of time.
• It is established as a time loop, not just "something that has occurred identically in a lot of alternate universes", which isn't a loop but more of a zig-zag: lots of straight parallel lines, with a diagonal jump across between each one, being the Fitz that travels across each time.
• The team are obsessed with breaking the loop, and say that they know if one of them dies early who isn't supposed to, that will be proof that they have broken the loop. If one of them dies early and they're in a different universe to the one with the dystopian future, then that's not evidence of anything. That just means that unfortunately, in this universe, that character has died earlier than in most. They could still be on course for the end of the world. The importance of the idea of one of them dying is it means time has been changed (split), so they are no longer bound by predestination to not save the world.
• Simmons says in Season 6 that they're not entirely sure how they changed time (again, changed time), implying it is not a scientific reason such as parallel universes.
• Simmons, Fitz, and Yo-Yo go through various death-defying incidents and survive because the time loop is already established that they survive into the future, they can't die because they don't die. They don't die until their timeline's future, so they can't die until their timeline's future.
• The timeline only splits in <i>The End</i>, as Robin declares that she feels the change in time, and everything is trapped in the time loop until that point, playing out identically to how it always did no matter how hard they try.
• At numerous times, the agents try desperately for things to be even slightly different. They don't manage because that's the way time is. In this theory, they are not in any way bound by predestination.
• In <i>Past Life</i>, future Yo-Yo tries desperately to say something different to what she heard herself say when she was younger. She then explains that everything she is saying is exactly what she heard herself say, and that even <i>in saying that</i> she is saying what she always said, in a frustrating, unavoidable predestination. If this is Earth-TRN676 2091 Yo-Yo speaking to Earth-199999 2017 Yo-Yo, by this theory, Earth-TRN676 Yo-Yo when she was her younger, 2091 self, would have spoken to Earth-TRN679 Yo-Yo - another universe's Yo-Yo. So there would be absolutely no reason why, no matter how hard she tries, she is caught in a frustrating, unavoidable predestination of the conversation to be identical to what she always heard.
• If the White Monolith were to transport you to another universe, why would they end up back in their old one when they go from 2091 to 2017? It's not like they're just switching it backwards, because they don't go back to when they came from, they go back to 7 months after they left (that's not just a thing from timeline theories, it's absolute fact that it's over 6 months later because the Quinjet has been left where Fitz and Hunter parked it in <i>Rewind</i>, over 6 months after the agents left). Plus they don't have the Monolith that sent them there to work with and just reverse it, they're rebuilding the future version of that Monolith.
• There is no need for three universes to have three versions of Fitz, as explained above, because there were two simultaneous Fitzes of different ages (a 30-year-old Fitz and a 104-year-old Fitz who was once the 30-year-old Fitz) around in 2018 when the timeline was split, therefore giving you two Fitzes in the new timeline, a 104-year-old who dies and a 30-year-old out in space no longer destined to become that 104-year-old. That's what happens in <i>The End</i>, essentially, "We lost our Fitz, but at least we have an old backup out there." And then they have to catch him up on what's happened since.

<p>So I hope you'll see why I personally view this situation as: </p>

• Go with what the show presents, a time loop that they manage to break

<p>or </p>

• Try to fudge what the show presents quite a lot, so as to fit a different theory outside of what the show puts forward, with the only motive to go in this direction being to fit the way the comics rules work.

<p>That's the way I perceive this, as I cannot see any other reason to want to try to make it not a time loop that's broken. </p><p>Again though, I greatly appreciate the time you have taken here, as it has allowed greater understanding and more informed conversation and points to be made. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>ProBot1227 wrote: I'd Also like to add that Deke's multiverse theory was referenced again in S6, leading to the impression that the writers intend for that to be the reasoning. </p> </i></div>
<p>No one's disputing a multiverse. His comments about the multiverse are just like the <i>Endgame</i> comments about <i>Back to the Future</i>, it's establishing that you can't rewrite a singular timeline - they worry about Deke blinking out of existence if you can, but it turns out you can't, so Deke was right, you can split the timeline. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• The <i>MCU</i> has not yet established entirely parallel universes, only universes created from splits in the timeline.

</i></div>
<p>They are, by definition, alternate universes. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• The White Monolith is purely a "time" Monolith, so would purely shift you in time, it's not a "time and parallel universe" Monolith.

</i></div>
<p>That brings you to a different point in time in a parallel universe, just like the time machine in endgame. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• Robin sees the future, not the future of an alternate universe.

</i></div>
<p>That means that the future of the current universe was going as apocalyptic as the one in an alternate universe, until it was changed, and she saw the change. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• Enoch is trying to change the future. There's no need if that's not the future.

</i></div>
<p>The future of the current universe was going to be as apocalyptic as in the alternate universe, unless prevented and changed. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• The "74 years later" of <i>Rewind</i> is "74 years later", not "74 years later, in another universe".

</i></div>
<p>The events of <i>Rewind</i> are exactly the same for every universe caught in the so-called loop, as Leo Fitz gets frozen in every one of them. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• The intention of <i>Rewind</i> is clearly that the Fitz you see at the end is the same character you've been following for the whole episode, as well as things like him then joining the rest of the team and showing them the weapons he hid in the wall. It's clearly meant to be him that put them there, not some other Fitz. This theory involves an added assumption that the show suddenly changes focus to a different Fitz during <i>Rewind</i>.

</i></div>
<p>The backstory of Leo Fitz is the same for every universe Doppelganger of him up until the events of <i>The End</i>. That means that both the 199999 currently alive Fitz, and the alternate currently deceased Fitz lived through the exact same events in their respective universes </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• In <i>The End</i>, Simmons talks about how happy she is that it turns out time <i>can</i> be changed and is fluid (albeit through splintering the timeline). This theory involves no changing of time.

</i></div>
<p>That means that not every universe is destined to live through the same outcome despite countless others did. Just like the alternate universes seen by Doctor Strange in <i>Infinity War</i>. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• It is established as a time loop, not just "something that has occurred identically in a lot of alternate universes", which isn't a loop but more of a zig-zag: lots of straight parallel lines, with a diagonal jump across between each one, being the Fitz that travels across each time.

</i></div>
<p>Not every viewer is going to use their time to write essays about a TV series. The phrase "time loop" is easier to apply and understand by characters without scientific knowledge. Every iteration of Yo-yo perceived it as a loop, as she saw "her past self" in the Lighthouse. She came from an alternate universe where their lives had been identical up until that point. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• The team are obsessed with breaking the loop, and say that they know if one of them dies early who isn't supposed to, that will be proof that they have broken the loop. If one of them dies early and they're in a different universe to the one with the dystopian future, then that's not evidence of anything. That just means that unfortunately, in this universe, that character has died earlier than in most. They could still be on course for the end of the world. The importance of the idea of one of them dying is it means time has been changed (split), so they are no longer bound by predestination to not save the world.

</i></div>
<p>If one of them dies early and they're in a different universe to the one with the dystopian future, then that means that the outcome is going to be different. Whether that means that Earth will be destroyed or not, is unknown. Therefore, this point proves nothing in either case. A universe where May, Fitz, Simmons or Yo-Yo died earlier simply means that is going to be different than the one seen in <i>The Last Day</i>. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• Simmons says in Season 6 that they're not entirely sure how they changed time (again, changed time), implying it is not a scientific reason such as parallel universes.

</i></div>
<p>Again, this proves nothing at all. That Simmons is unaware of it doesn't mean it's not true. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• Simmons, Fitz, and Yo-Yo go through various death-defying incidents and survive because the time loop is already established that they survive into the future, they can't die because they don't die. They don't die until their timeline's future, so they can't die until their timeline's future.

</i></div>
<p>Again, this proves nothing at all. Fitz, Simmons an Yo-yo don't die in Earth-199999, just like they didn't in other universes. Most characters have gone through various death-defying incidents and survive, whether they were involved in loops or just because the actors had a contract. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• The timeline only splits in <i>The End</i>, as Robin declares that she feels the change in time, and everything is trapped in the time loop until that point, playing out identically to how it always did no matter how hard they try.

</i></div>
<p>The future of the current universe was going to be as apocalyptic as in the alternate universe, unless prevented and changed. And that changed happened there, in this universe, unlike the countless others. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• At numerous times, the agents try desperately for things to be even slightly different. They don't manage because that's the way time is. In this theory, they are not in any way bound by predestination.

</i></div>
<p>The future of the current universe was going to be as apocalyptic as in the alternate universe, unless prevented and changed. The agents were unaware of the details of the universe, and therefore played them out coincidentally just like they did in other universe. After all, it's pretty easy to realize that a person would make similar decissions in similar contexts if they are unaware of the actual outcome. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• In <i>Past Life</i>, future Yo-Yo tries desperately to say something different to what she heard herself say when she was younger. She then explains that everything she is saying is exactly what she heard herself say, and that even <i>in saying that</i> she is saying what she always said, in a frustrating, unavoidable predestination. If this is Earth-TRN676 2091 Yo-Yo speaking to Earth-199999 2017 Yo-Yo, by this theory, Earth-TRN676 Yo-Yo when she was her younger, 2091 self, would have spoken to Earth-TRN679 Yo-Yo - another universe's Yo-Yo. So there would be absolutely no reason why, no matter how hard she tries, she is caught in a frustrating, unavoidable predestination of the conversation to be identical to what she always heard.

</i></div>
<p>That's exactly what happened, alternate versions of Yo-Yo trying to say something different, only to end up saying the same. Essentially, every alternate Yo-Yo caught in the loop has lived through the same, has the same personality, and ends up saying the same words. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• If the White Monolith were to transport you to another universe, why would they end up back in their old one when they go from 2091 to 2017? It's not like they're just switching it backwards, because they don't go back to when they came from, they go back to 7 months after they left (that's not just a thing from timeline theories, it's absolute fact that it's over 6 months later because the Quinjet has been left where Fitz and Hunter parked it in <i>Rewind</i>, over 6 months after the agents left). Plus they don't have the Monolith that sent them there to work with and just reverse it, they're rebuilding the future version of that Monolith.

</i></div>
<p>And where exactly says that the Monolith needs to return you to the point where it took you? Just like the exit point for the Black Monolith moved in space as both Maveth and Earth moved, the exit point for the White Monolith moved in time as time passed in both universes. Again, another point that proves nothing. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>BEJT wrote: </p>

• There is no need for three universes to have three versions of Fitz, as explained above, because there were two simultaneous Fitzes of different ages (a 30-year-old Fitz and a 104-year-old Fitz who was once the 30-year-old Fitz) around in 2018 when the timeline was split, therefore giving you two Fitzes in the new timeline, a 104-year-old who dies and a 30-year-old out in space no longer destined to become that 104-year-old. That's what happens in <i>The End</i>, essentially, "We lost our Fitz, but at least we have an old backup out there." And then they have to catch him up on what's happened since.

</i></div>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: They are, by definition, alternate universes. </p> </i></div>
<p>Alternate universes created through splitting a universe in two, as opposed to simply two completely separate universes. Like monozygotic vs. dizygotic twins. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: That brings you to a different point in time in a parallel universe, just like the time machine in endgame. </p> </i></div>
<p>The writers have explained that the time machine does not create alternate universes, but I'm not going to into <i>Endgame</i> now. </p><p>This doesn't address the point of why a stone purely linked with time would send you to an alternate reality when that's not its power. They even say it moves you purely in time when Fitz explains why they haven't moved location. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: That means that the future of the current universe was going as apocalyptic as the one in an alternate universe, until it was changed, and she saw the change. </p> </i></div>
<p>Time cannot be literally changed, only split. Fitz explains it in <i>Spacetime</i>, we are just experiencing the fourth dimension in three-dimensional moments. Time doesn't unspool and if you look into the future at one point you'll see one thing while if you look into the future at another point you'll see another. You'd just see <i>the</i> future. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: The future of the current universe was going to be as apocalyptic as in the alternate universe, unless prevented and changed. </p> </i></div>
<p>But by this theory, it was never going to be. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: The events of <i>Rewind</i> are exactly the same for every universe caught in the so-called loop, as Leo Fitz gets frozen in every one of them. </p> </i></div>
<div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: The backstory of Leo Fitz is the same for every universe Doppelganger of him up until the events of <i>The End</i>. That means that both the 199999 currently alive Fitz, and the alternate currently deceased Fitz lived through the exact same events in their respective universes </p> </i></div>
<p>I understand that the events are identical, but that doesn't change the fact that the show presents it as <i>the</i> same Fitz, especially with the "74 years later' essentially telling you that. </p><p>My point is not to say that the theory does not make sense. As I mentioned, it's internally consistent. My point is, what is the motive to choose this theory over the much simpler one that the show presents? Why would you want it to be this way? </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: That means that not every universe is destined to live through the same outcome despite countless others did. Just like the alternate universes seen by Doctor Strange in <i>Infinity War</i>. </p> </i></div>
<p>"But he'll be so happy to know that time is not fixed. It's a fluid, ever-changing, beautiful thing." She is not saying, "He'll be so happy to know that while time can't be changed, in some universes, things turn out nicely." </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: Not every viewer is going to use their time to write essays about a TV series. The phrase "time loop" is easier to apply and understand by characters without scientific knowledge. Every iteration of Yo-yo perceived it as a loop, as she saw "her past self" in the Lighthouse. She came from an alternate universe where their lives had been identical up until that point. </p> </i></div>
<p>I understand, it's possible to fudge the show referring to a time loop. I think again, the main point I want to stress here is: OK, but why shouldn't it be a time loop when it can be and that's what the show says? </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: If one of them dies early and they're in a different universe to the one with the dystopian future, then that means that the outcome is going to be different. Whether that means that Earth will be destroyed or not, is unknown. Therefore, this point proves nothing in either case. A universe where May, Fitz, Simmons or Yo-Yo died earlier simply means that is going to be different than the one seen in <i>The Last Day</i>. </p> </i></div>
<p>I know that it only means the outcome is going to be different, and whether that means that the Earth will be destroyed or not is still unknown. However, the stress in the point was supposed to be that the reason an early death is important is because it means they have broken away from predestination. In this version of events, that type of predestination is not ever at play. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: Again, this proves nothing at all. That Simmons is unaware of it doesn't mean it's not true. </p> </i></div>
<p>Which is fine from an in-universe character perspective, but not an out-of-universe writer perspective, where the writers are writing through Simmons to the audience. </p><p>This is the same as in-universe timeline errors, when you have to consider, "OK, from an in-universe perspective, yes, it's very human for someone to simply miscalculate slightly in their head or misremember. However, this is not just a human speaking, this is the writer putting, through that piece of dialogue, a timeline statement across." So when you have to take the former, it's fudging things. And that's my point here, this theory works well enough if you fudge things, but why would you want to when you don't have to? </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: Again, this proves nothing at all. Fitz, Simmons an Yo-yo don't die in Earth-199999, just like they didn't in other universes. Most characters have gone through various death-defying incidents and survive, whether they were involved in loops or just because the actors had a contract. </p> </i></div>
<p>Sure, it's possible they just didn't die out of luck. And it can be argued as well that in a time loop, they don't die because of luck, because it's a "chicken and the egg" situation: they can't die because they survive these events, they survive these events because they can't die, they can't die because they survive these events, etc.. But the reason Simmons knows she can do it is because they know they are stuck in a time loop. And I know the argument can again be made that, well, Simmons just isn't aware. But that doesn't change the fact that the writers are presenting a time loop. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: That's exactly what happened, alternate versions of Yo-Yo trying to say something different, only to end up saying the same. Essentially, every alternate Yo-Yo caught in the loop has lived through the same, has the same personality, and ends up saying the same words. </p> </i></div>
<p>This is not, however, a matter of coincidence where you would end up saying the same thing in the same situation. This is a matter of actively trying with every syllable to deviate. She finds she cannot because essentially, time won't let her. It's a horrible, nightmare-ish scenario where she cannot say the conversation in any other way no matter how hard she tries because it can't be different from the conversation she heard, because it <i>is</i> that conversation. The only reason she is unable to deviate in any way is because she is bound by time, once you remove that, i.e. if it is not literally the same conversation, then there is no reason why she would not be able to say something even a tiny bit different. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: And where exactly says that the Monolith needs to return you to the point where it took you? Just like the exit point for the Black Monolith moved in space as both Maveth and Earth moved, the exit point for the White Monolith moved in time as time passed in both universes. Again, another point that proves nothing. </p> </i></div>
<p>My point was: Why would the White Monolith send them specifically back to their old reality and not just to another reality this time? Exactly, "Where exactly says that the Monolith needs to return you to the point where it took you?" </p><p>I then was addressing a possible counterpoint to that: They are not making another jump in time (and thus, by this theory, to another reality) to 2017, they are simply reversing the process that got them there. And saying that no, they aren't, because they don't go back to the same time they left, nor did the Monolith come with them on their journey for them to work off it. </p><p>I also feel that I should say I don't appreciate the, what I perceive to be, slightly belittling tone of a phrase like "Again, another point that proves nothing", Shabook. I am engaging you in fair, thorough conversation and trying to not use that sort of tone in my dismantling of points. I hope it's OK just to mention this. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Shabook wrote: "Having no need" is the worst argument you may use, and the main one I dismantled with the explanation above. There are three Fitzes from three different universes actually seen in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., each and every one of them displaced to the past of an alternate universe, where they lived a life until their death. The only one who has not been displaced is the one native to Earth-199999 who was frozen like the rest, but didn't get to become Boshtok the Marauder. </p> </i></div>
<p>I am not using "having no need" as an argument in favour of a point. I am using it, in this context, to say that the argument <i>for</i> this theory seems to be "There is a need for there to be three universes for there to be three Fitzes" and "This is how Marvel Comics works". Then, in saying there is no need, that was me saying, "That first argument isn't valid, since it's not the case." </p>

<p>I agree with BEJT. Shabook's explanation works but there isn't anything in the show that would point to it being true. It should be treated as a theory. </p><p>What we're shown is that all the agents (including Fitz from different means) travel from the present of Earth-A to the future of Earth-A. Then, they come back to the present of Earth-A some months after they left, and then create Earth-B which is now the main MCU timeline. We're also shown that the agents had already tried to change Earth-A's future but failed and were stuck in a time loop until they managed to split universes in the S5 finale. </p><p>I don't see why you would think the Monolith transported them to an alternate universe future, instead of just the future of their own universe. Unless you have a source stating that, it would just be speculation. </p>

<p>I do agree with Shabook, just like Strange saw multiple outcomes of the upcoming conflict from the Infinity War and beyond, he saw multiple realities (alternate universes) where different results would have happened. This is the same just with the Monolith being involved. </p>

<p>I too agree with Shabook. <i>The End</i> confirms that Fitz's conception of time-space was wrong, because it didn't considered the theory of the universal wavefunction [1], it was a deterministic approach that was more similar to Bohr-Einstein interpretation of time and quantum physic. </p>