He didn't die, Harry saved him!

[menotyoo]

At the end of OoP, Harry is trying desperately to handle Sirius' death, and he tries everything that he can think of. What about the time turner? He's used it before to save Sirius' life-- and I'm sure he wouldn't mind doing the math and figuring out how many times he needs to turn a time turner if he had one! Those who have read PoA know that when you go back and try to change the past it turns out that somehow your past already included your doing so. (i.e. Harry sends a Patronus when he goes back, but he had already done it....it's very hard to explain) So what if Harry uses a time turner and goes back to the death room. When he hears people coming he instinctively hides through the archway. He waits until Sirius is hit with Bellatrix's stunning spell(JKR never identifies what spell hits Sirius) and he starts falling backwards, so Harry pulls him through the veil with him in order to save him. Far fetched, I know- but possible?

[Violet]

it is technically possible, but i dont think that DD would let it happen. It was different before when harry saved sirius because that was supposed to happen (he saw the patronus that he created 1st time around, then went back to create it).
Whereas this time sirius was supposed to die as nothing actually saved him.

[Gower]

Harry doesn't have the time turner anymore, I think the ministry has it. DD wouldn't allow Harry to go back in time and change anything because it is so dangerous to dabble with time. How would Harry ever manage to save Sirius without being seen by his past self?

[Violet]

It would all depend on how far back he went in time. i mean maybe he could go back a long way and move Snape's pensieve so when he went for his occlumency lesson he didnt notice it, thus snape would have continued to give him lessons, and he wouldnt have had the vision from Voldermort at all.

But as much as i didnt want Sirius to die, i think that there was obviously some good reason for it, which JK will probably reveal in book6.

[Scellanis]

there must be laws against that...life would be too easy for wizards if it was possible to grab a time turner and go back and change something to make everything better

anyway, it was Hermione who had the time turner and she gave it back to McGonagall after she stopped needing it so Harry couldn't get a time turner even if he wanted to and would he know how to use it...hermione did all that

[Jotomicron]

If DD wanted Harry to have a time turner, DD would be able to let Harry use one: he would find out some way to have one.
BUT (there's always a but...) something is stopping DD from doing it... either his will or something else, i don't know!

As for the pensieve thing:

It would all depend on how far back he went in time. i mean maybe he could go back a long way and move Snape's pensieve so when he went for his occlumency lesson he didnt notice it, thus snape would have continued to give him lessons, and he wouldnt have had the vision from Voldermort at all.

I think it wouldn't be possible, as Harry DID stop heving Occlumency... there's no other way. If Harry had managed to go to the past and try to stop him from seeing Snape's memories, there would be something that would prevent him from doing so (Hope I make myself clear).

[Violet]

yeah i guess you're right, i think that basically that sirius is gone, and while DD could probably think of someway to go back and save him he wouldnt because sirius was meant to die then, and in that way.

[Gower]

That is a DD type way of looking at it. And as I said before, changing the past is too dangerous.

[Violet]

but i wonder how u distinguish when it's ok to change the past and when it's not.
I mean it was ok for hermione to go back and take her classes and stuff, and when harry saved sirius in book3.
So who decides, and how that some things can be done differently?

[Gower]

Well i suppose you aren't allowed to change major things in the past. Hermione doing a different lesson isn't a major thing. I think we can safely assume that bringing someone back from the dead is a major thing

[menotyoo]

what if he's not changing the past? harry could have been unseen by anyone, and pulled sirius into the veil. that could have been what harry saw happen is what im trying to say. he isnt altering the past, really.... but he's keeping sirius alive. I don't know, was his saving sirus in PoA and losing him in OotP just to add to Harry's list of horrors, or does sirius still have a purpose to serve?

[Gower]

maybe sirius died because someone has to die in every book from now on. And his death will have had quite an impact on the readers. I don't think sirius has any future purpose to serve, other than for Harry to feel sad about him.

[Violet]

I see what u mean Menotyoo, I suppose it is possible, and while i know that the series does detail the trials that harry has to deal with, it does seem a lot for one person to go through. i mean initially he lost his parents, then had to grow up with the Dursleys, has had to fight Voldermort and the death eaters on numerous occassions, deal with the abuse and constant scrutiny from those in the wizarding world, and now has lost on of the few people he loved in the world.
I would love to see Sirius come back, however from what JK says about death in the books, she seems to be very set on the idea that once someone is dead that is it.
It would be a somewhat pointless part of the story if Sirius died only to return in book 6.

[Sacred Guardian]

ummm, it's not possible, at least how you said it, if present harry goes through the vail to hide from past harry, harry's gang, DE's etc. he dies, going through the veil = death, and so the books would end, besides the point of getting your hands on a time turner

[yasmane]

Well, I really think you can't do everything you want with the time turner.
Otherwise, why wouldn't the MoM go back into time and kill VD when he was young.
You must be able to use the time turner when things are supposed to hapen differently : as menotyoo said "Those who have read PoA know that when you go back and try to change the past it turns out that somehow your past already included your doing so".
I think everything is explained here, even if it's incomprehensible for us in a rational way.