Something I need cleared up

Yes, I've always thought a split timeline made the most sense, and now that it is common knowledge that this is the case,I haven;t really stopped to question it much. But the other day, something got me.

First of all, we need to look at how time travel works in Zelda. In terms of time travel, there are two ways people look at it. The Multiverse theory, (in essence, there are an infinite number of universes, each sprouting off every decision we make), this means if you go back in time and change something, it will have no affect on the future. Then there's the other, with only one universe, meaning if you go back in time and change something, you can change the future.

OoT conforms more to the multiverse theory, on a smaller scale. Meaning when Link travelled back, he created another timeline. The adult and child time line co-exist without one interfering with the other. Take for instance how Ganondorf's defeat in TP had no affect on Adult time line's Ganondorf's ToP.

But then, different rules seem to apply in MM. Here, Link can go back in time and actually change the future. If we were to apply the same logic as OoT's time travel uses on MM, then there should be tons of splits going on, but there arn't.

And this brings me to wondering why the child time line has no impact on the adult time line. Shouldn't Ganondorf's execution simply eradicate him from the adult time line?

I'm sort of beginning to get lost here, I'm aware that the change in rules of time travel in MM may be for the sake of game play but I'm just doing a little investigating.

First thing we need to set straight is that, whether MM time travel causes timeline shifts or not, things that happen in that world would not necessarily affect Hyrule. Ergo, there would be a number of timeline shifts in which only Termina is affected, and Hyrule remains the same.

And even if it does not, MM travel is different than OoT travel in that Link does not appear to grow younger or revert back to his old self when he time travels in MM. He returns to the first day and "replaces" himself on arrival, as opposed to simply waking up at some certain time in OoT travel. This is different than rewinding the whole world, including oneself, to a particular moment and making a different decision; MM Link is simply getting "more time" by returning himself to the Dawn of the First Day.

Also, looking at this from a developer perspective, OoT has two endings, MM does not. Or if it does, or if it has many endings, they all end with the skull kid at the top of that tower super happy that the world is about to end, and then the world ends, end of story.

Or, Link saves everybody, ergo, the series can continue. Whatever time travel mechanic (and I hate time travel mechanics, mostly because they were never meant to be a working "mechanic" but only made to increase playability) happens or doesn't happen and whatever that entails, OoT just has two endings, and one story can move on from one ending, and the other can move on from the other ending.

We HAVE talked about this a lot, and a lot of people are still confused about it, but I don't happen to think that whether the master sword and ocarina "makes you travel through times in different ways" matters.

I don't think you understand the split timeline.

If something happenes in the child timeline than it doesn't happen in the adult one.

In OoT time travle you go from point A-B-A-Hyrule-C-D This being the case because you warp back 7 years exactly as supposed to travveling back from when you first ever pulled the MS.

In MM Timetravle you don't travvle through time as much as you change the layering of the universe because of items.

OoA is the same as OoT's.

I'm done with this topic and I hope that my OoT mechanics didn't give anyone a headache.

Link is just oging back in time and just replacing himself in the timeline. If he didn't, wouldn't there be two links instead of 1?? o.O