this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025

19 points (95.2% liked)

Memes

51505 readers

1096 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

gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

time to think (lemm.ee)

submitted 4 months ago by PlasticPope@lemm.ee to c/memes@lemmy.ml

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Or relative to the galactic center. That would put you even further off.

[–] klay@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago

Earth frame isn't inertial

[+] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] klay@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] Aux@feddit.uk 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 3 months ago

I've explained it in another reply. It's not about being "stationary".

[–] FatsoJackson@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

that's why you build it like a spaceship 🤷 ez

[–] zod000@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

I hear police boxes and phones booths are popular as well.

[–] danekrae@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

This blew my mind. All those movies!

So, Back to the Future's a bunch of bullshit?!

[–] potoo22@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago

There's a ton of issues with time travel. That could be one, but most fictional time-travel devices can be said to accommodate for the difference in distance. It would just be boring to explain on-screen.

[–] Carvex@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

floating astronaut with pistol always has been

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It could be explained as a time and space machine but just saying time machine is easier.

That's how ive always thought of these things in my head.

[–] fushuan@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

but imagine if you could set it to the same time but different distance, it would allow you to teleport, that might be too strong.

[–] OddButNotReally@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I remember reading about this concept as a kid in a short story Neal Shusterman wrote called Same Time, Next Year. Blew my mind

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If space is always expanding, I’d really like to know if a time traveler would experience issues existing in a universe where the space between atoms is different from the one they left.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

They are not, that would require changes in the strong force.

[–] MoonMelon@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months 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.

[–] malle_yeno@pawb.social 1 points 3 months 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 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] lucullus@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

well it's likely the big bang has a central point, no?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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?

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

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months 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.

[–] polycrome@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

One way to resolve this is to have some kind of multiverse theory where you don't travel back in time to your universe, but to a narrow slection of parallel universes that are also shifted slightly so that it spits you out in an analogous location to your initial departure.

[–] RabbitBBQ@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

It's just another problem with the mechanics of the snap at the end of Avengers: Endgame

[–] Faydaikin@beehaw.org 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

See, that's a problem they always skip in time-travel movies.

[–] Codeviper828@lemmus.org 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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