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.
Clark Ashton Smith wrote a similar short story where the inventor failed to take it into account. Upon realizing his mistake he decided to just wait for another planet to reach him, turning his time machine into a spaceship.
That’s actually a fascinating idea. All interstellar travel is based on the movements of the planets through space time. I bet it alternates between being technically faster and slower than FTL travel since you may have to wait for a time when your destination to pass into the planets past location.
Wow that’s a fun thought hole. Constraint certainly breeds creativity!
that’s why you build it like a spaceship 🤷 ez
I hear police boxes and phones booths are popular as well.
You’ve got to entangle the same machine first over a massive macro quantum space-time superposition.
See, you get it.
Position isn’t absolute so if this happens this means you knowingly made the time machine memorize position relative to the sun rather than the earth.
Or relative to the galactic center. That would put you even further off.
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
All of space is moving, you need to fix a reference point, there’s nothing to stop you making it earth
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.
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.
please explain to me how do you think being stationary in space works?
There are two ways of looking at it.
- 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.
- 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.
I remember reading about this concept as a kid in a short story Neal Shusterman wrote called Same Time, Next Year. Blew my mind
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.
They are not, that would require changes in the strong force.
They wouldn’t; the expansion of space isn’t strong enough to change the distance between atoms; the force holding them together overcomes it.
I was under the impression that gravity was a constant force keeping the atoms closer together
More importantly it’s the electromagnetic force that keeps atoms together. Gravity only keeps planets and stars together and also solar systems and galaxies, but in ordinary objects it’s totally negligible.
“Weaker than Weak”.
Space itself is constantly expanding. Theories of the Big Rip predict the space between atomic particles could become vast enough to rip them apart.
The big rip scenario happens in the case where the rate of space expansion is increasing. It’s possible, but we haven’t seen any evidence of it yet, so far the rate appears constant, which means a heat death scenario.
The big rip concept comes into play when the expansion rate starts to become faster than the forces holding molecules and atoms together. As far as current cosmic expansion goes, it only applies to space between galaxies. The current expansion rate is so weak it’s not enough to overcome forces that hold galaxies together.
Should have watched Tom Scott
It’s just another problem with the mechanics of the snap at the end of Avengers: Endgame
Magic exists in that universe though and they’re using some of the most powerful objects in the universe. So like if it’s granting a wish, you just wish that everyone comes back to earth or whatever. It’s not even really a suspension of disbelief. It feels more silly to think that genius scientists using wish granting artifacts wouldn’t remember to account for the movement of the earth through space.
I cant watch that movie without thinking of all the unintended consequences. Pilots on planes snapped out, plane goes down, when pilot is snapped back, where plane use to be, but is now free falling.
I know we’re in a meme community but this did get me thinking… Not only is the Earth spinning but it’s also in an orbit around the Sun which is also orbiting around the center of the Milky Way which is moving through space relative to other galaxies and so on.
Do we have enough information to calculate a position in space in the future for Earth without a fixed reference other than current point?
Here, that might be interesting to you.
That’s what einstein said. There is no fixed reference frame, but only relative ones. Every “inertial”(meaning, motion without any external force) frame of reference is equally valid as any other inertial frame movibg with respect to it.
But for sure we can tell earth’s orbit is not inertial since circular motion occur, which is due to enternal force of gravity.
Shouldn’t it be (at least theoretically) possible to find some sort of geometric center where - on average - the rest of the universe is expanding away from?
Turns out, no; every point is expanding away from every other point, so every point sees itself as the center of expansion.
That could sort of explain why it’s inherently impossible to determine the center - but that doesn’t rule out the existence of a geometric center of the universe, right?
No, for the same reason you can’t find a point a balloon is expanding from on its surface. Everything is expanding everywhere.
I’m not sure if I follow the balloon analogy. Sure, you can’t find the center on it’s surface. But somewhere within the balloon, there is a center. It might be virtually impossible to determine the center while actively inflating the balloon, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any center? What makes the rest of the universe fundamentally different from an inflating balloon? I’m genuinely curious.
OK, so what we discovered was that if we look far into the universe, all stuff is moving away from us (we can measure that using the famous red shift). Additionally, the farther something is, the faster it is moving away from us.
Now the simplest explanation would be that the Earth just happens to be exactly in the middle of this expansion. However, it is much more reasonable to assume our location in the universe is not special in any way and that you’d see things moving away from you if you did these measurements anywhere else. If that is so, the universe is expanding, everywhere. There’s more space in the universe every second and there’s still the same amout of matter, hence it is becoming larger, emptier and colder.
The next step is to look back and think of how the universe looked in the past. Since it’s getting bigger and bigger, it must have been smaller before and if you go back in time enough you’ll find a tiny universe that nontheless has the same total amount of matter in it, just densely packed into possibly just a single point. Hard to say what preceded that moment, but we can predict a universe that started as an incredibly energetic singularity which exploded out and has been growing ever since. We call that moment the Big Bang and if anything, that is the centre from which everything is expanding. Not found somewhere in space but in time.
Back to the balloon analogy, the centre would be the deflated little thing you start with. Maybe a better analogy would be the little clump of molten glass at the end of a glassblower’s pipe. He begins to blow, the big bang happens, expansion starts. Fast forward 13.7 billion years (which happens to be today) - the glass has expanded into a large spherical object and there’s some tiny people living on it.
They only live on the surface of the glass and the sphere is so huge (or they are so tiny) that they can’t even tell that their world is spherical. They measure distances to some other specs littered across the glass and find that they are all moving away from them, faster the farther they are. Their universe is expanding, but where is the centre of expansion? They cannot point to it, because they only live in two dimensions, fully defined by the sufrace of the sphere. But if they could point in a direction perpendicular to all the spacial dimensions they know, they could point to the point where the sphere started, long in their past.
So the right question is not form “where” the universe expands but “whence”. The Big Bang. The very start. Somewhere far in time, which is just another direcdtion, perpendicular to up, left, forward.
I very much appreciate the effort to write your repsonse, and if you’re out of time or energy I completely understand.
So if I’m understanding you right, we’re 3-dimensional creatures living in a 4-dimensional universe, with the 4th dimension being… time? And time behaves completely different from the other 3 dimensions, which is why we can’t just disregard or freeze it when trying to determine a center?
It’s not, because the space itself is expanding
There is not central point in the universe, and no way to calculate a position. Everything is relatove
I think you’ll run into the three body problem.
I don’t think we have a relative fixed point to go off unless you choose the centre of the big bang. It’s all relative to other things around us which are also moving lol
Isn’t everywhere kinda the center?
This is why Doctor Who has a time and space machine. Also because the BBC didn’t have the effects budget to show him flying around.
We also get a few glances of the coordinate system that the time machines use in doctor who. It appears to have enough digits for a date/time as well as an X/Y/Z grid coordinate.
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
Wow, I never thought about that.
It’s even cooler if you remember we send something to the moon even with all this variables and no calculators humans were able to know where the moon would be
Of course the moon is relatively close but still
Math is hard.
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.
Same place relative to what?
It’s space-time, not space and time. Moving backwards in one moves you backwards in the other.
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.
Can’t they just float and follow the Earth? Or would it be too fast? What’s the terminal velocity of a ghost?
What is this comment in response to?
Glad I’m not the only one confused. Who’s talmbout ghosts
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.
And its not like there even is a same place. Position is relative, but to what in this case? Doesn’t even make sense
well it’s likely the big bang has a central point, no?
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.
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
No central point there
