this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
19 points (95.2% liked)
Memes
49842 readers
1183 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
No, i am not assuming that. I was correcting you on 'knowingly' and 'the sun rather than the earth'. When earth and suns position are relative to one another and can be calculated, therefore in a universal sense are both non-absolute, because as you correctly state, the suns position is non-absolute.
We can gladly discuss my assumption that we wouldn't be able to tell a time machine what the position relative to the earth would be, as a time machine is in a universal sense rather than just earthly(?). Would that work like a rocket ship, starting form earth, going to places we can see from earth, or is it about dimensions the universe and so on?
Other than that you misunderstood my post.
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.
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)?
I've explained it in another reply. It's not about being "stationary".