• OhHiMarx@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    55 minutes ago

    This is not how general relativity works at all. If your coordinates are set to a spot on Earth (or some spot relative to Earth), you will appear at that same point. Spacetime exhibits something called diffeomorphism covariance which is a fancy way of saying you’d have to go out of your way in the dumbest way possible to get this outcome.

  • MoonMelon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I was surprised when I read the OG time machine story by Jules Verne and this was a main plot point, and only later stories hand-waived it. You’d think it was something from later analysis of the idea. Almost like that Verne dude was clever.

  • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    Position isn’t absolute so if this happens this means you knowingly made the time machine memorize position relative to e.g. the sun rather than the earth.

    • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Tine machine probably moved in its own inertial reference frame. That will actually get you lost in space because the inertial frame does not orbit around, which involves rotation(rotation is intrinsically non-inertial, i.e accelerating). Time machine’s frame will be moving in a straight line if its inertial

    • klay@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      incorrect, that is not what this means. They could have forgotten about the position setting all together. Also why the suns position? it is also moving and non absolute, just like earths. Makes no difference in this meme

      • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        All of space is moving, you need to fix a reference point, there’s nothing to stop you making it earth

      • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        17 hours ago

        They could have forgotten about the position setting all together.

        You’re assuming that the time machine would just change the time and keep the position but there is no absolute reference frame, so the time machine should use some reference frame in which it keeps the position constant. It would then be common sense to have the time machine keep the position relative to the earth. Anything else would be pretty dumb, unless you want to use your time machine also for space travel to other planets.

        why the suns position

        That was just an example. It’s either the sun or the center of our galaxy, or some other reference point so if it wasn’t the earth then the sun is the next most logical option.

        • Aux@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          17 hours ago

          What you’re describing is a machine which moves both in time and space. A machine which only moves in time would result in this meme no matter how you twist it.

          • Fluke@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            That isn’t possible. Time is as part of space as the other dimensions. Time is distorted by mass, just like space.

            You can’t move “purely on the Y axis” any more than you can move “purely on the time axis”, or vice versa.

            Off topic: Why is it a new idea that the observed motion of the universe around us is affected by “faster time” in denser areas of space? Why is that not blindingly obvious? Bwuh?

          • 0ops@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            We can’t really say that for certain. The word “space” as we know it means nothing without the idea of relativity. Earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way, which exists in a nest of clusters and super clusters … and then you get to the edge of the visible universe. My point is, if a universal frame of reference exists, we haven’t found it. “Absolutely stationary” isn’t something we can test for. Everything that we can observe appears to be moving around something, so can we even responsibly assume that there is a universal frame of reference? Or is it safer to assume that relativity all that there is (i.e. space-time has no boundaries)?

            • Aux@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 hours ago

              There are two ways of looking at it.

              1. The time machine is using itself as a point of reference to comply with general relativity. The only way to time travel is to move forward in time. The way to move through time would be to move a lot faster than the Earth, so that every minute for you inside the time machine would equal to many years for earthlings. And if you’re moving that fast you’ll fly away from Earth.
              2. The time machine somehow has a knowledge of the whole universe, this way a Newtonian model applies and an absolute point of reference exists. That allows unrestricted travel both forwards and backwards in time, but that also means that the Earth will inevitably move from under the machine to follow its path across the universe.

              No matter how you twist it you’ll end up all alone in space. You need a machine which can move through both time and space at the same time.

  • Malle_Yeno@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    It should be illegal to remind people (me, particularly) about Steins;Gate while they’re at work

    I can’t be fucking crying on the clock, dawg

  • Jimius@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    Also, the earth will never be in the same place twice. So it’s not even like you can only jump increments of a solar year.

    • lucullus@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      And its not like there even is a same place. Position is relative, but to what in this case? Doesn’t even make sense

        • 0ops@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          It wasn’t matter that “banged”, it was space-time itself. We observe space expanding, and when we extrapolated backwards eventually we found the point when space-time (not necessarily the stuff inside it) was just a single point, and we called that point “the big bang”. That’s just what the current math says of course, but because of the rate of expansion and the speed of light, we can only observe so much of the universe, past and present. Even when we observe far out and way back to soon after the big bang, we don’t see it all, our scope is limited even within space-time. And from what we can observe, nothing indicates a center. For all we know, there isn’t one, just like you can’t paint a dot on the surface of a ball and call it the center of the surface, every point on the ball’s surface has equal claim to that. In that situation relativity is all that there is. Unless there’s a massive breakthrough, it’s looking like the laws of physics won’t permit us to know if a center exists, let alone find it.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          Imagine the universe as the surface of a balloon. The Big Bang Theory stipulates that at one point, the balloon was extremely small, like a single point. But now that the balloon is bigger, you can’t find a particular spot on the balloon where that point was, because everywhere was that point. No matter where you are in the universe, if you turned back time and shrunk the balloon back down, you would be at the point of the Big Bang. Nowhere is closer or farther away from it.

          • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            would not the fact that blue shifted galaxies being rare, mean that in general all galaxies are red shifted from the perspective of all galaxies, thus they are expanding away from a point on a similar vector, and thus have a central point?

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              would not the fact that blue shifted galaxies being rare, mean that in general all galaxies are red shifted from the perspective of all galaxies, thus they are expanding away from a point on a similar vector, and thus have a central point?

              No, it means the opposite. They are expanding away from all points, because space itself is expanding. In fact, stars are able to move away from each other faster than the speed of light, which is only possible because space is expanding. Again, like the surface of a balloon, we can imagine that the further away two points are from each other, the faster they’ll move away from each other as the balloon expands, so even if there’s a certain maximum speed that you can move along the surface of the balloon, if two points are far enough away from each other the rate that distance is created between them can exceed that speed.

              If there was a single, specific point in space where all the stuff came from, then we wouldn’t observe the same thing in every direction. Sure, we might see stuff ahead of us redshifted because it’s moving faster and stuff behind us redshifted because we’re moving faster, but we should also expect to see stuff to the sides moving alongside us at similar speeds that would not be redshifted. The fact that there’s consistent red shifting in every direction, getting more pronounced the greater the distance, leads us to the conclusion that space is expanding.

              And a balloon does have a vector of direction: the mouth piece

              It’s an analogy, don’t take it too literally.

    • Codeviper828@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      At least in Doctor Who, the T.A.R.D.I.S. can’t teleport through space as well as through time, solving that problem. But most time machines don’t

  • BlueFootedPetey@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Oooohh. Thanks for the tip, just added that into my time travelling port o pottie’s destination algorithms. Gotta respect the earth be moving and shit.

  • callouscomic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Also ghosts likely wouldn’t be affected by a gravitational pull, so the concept doesn’t make sense and there’d just be a trail of ghosts in space.

  • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Same place relative to what?

    It’s space-time, not space and time. Moving backwards in one moves you backwards in the other.