this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
1160 points (97.9% liked)

Science Memes

11130 readers
2936 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 79 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not only is the earth never in the same spot, the solar system it's never in the same spot either. Even our galaxy is moving.

[–] SpiderShoeCult@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

so would it be accurate to say that if one were to take a frame of reference on a large scale, say, the absolute centre of the universe (I know, but bear with me on this one), it's also fairly impossible to travel back in space as well as time, seeing as by the time it takes you to take a step back to your original position, the earth has already moved enough that you are no longer there relative to your reference?

[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm not sure "an absolute reference frame" exists. But, in your scenario they'd have to lead the shot so to speak. And jump in behind where they want to be.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Excuse me, but your name. Wtf.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Chemical@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And also any future position may be dependent on many variables that might be different each jump. If you were to go back in the past, the future location may be off greatly; just by going back may have altered the future location, insert multiverse theory etc

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Knusper@feddit.de 62 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, I'm glad we got to the bottom of what's unrealistic about traveling back in time...

[–] calavera@lemm.ee 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Time and space are pretty much linked so if you travel in time you can travel in spacetime :)

[–] Knusper@feddit.de 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah, but to my knowledge, you can only go forwards in time.

What you can do, is go forwards at a slower speed. So, if you sat yourself in a spaceship and accelerated to e.g. 10% of the speed of light, you might get out after what you perceive as a few years and find yourself in the year 2200 (I did not do the math), but you cannot go back from there.

Causal chains always have to follow causality. They can just do so less quickly, because, as far as my current understanding goes, the speed of light is actually the speed of causality.

(Sorry to bonk you with so much physics. I know that initial statement could have also come from someone who's never heard of the theory of relativity...)

[–] calavera@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You just need to reverse entropy haha

[–] AEsheron@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thing is, a time traveling device would be like the one on Futurama. It just makes time flow at different rates. What people generally think of is a time teleport. And due to the nature of spacetime, a time teleport is indistinguishable from a space teleport. So any teleport should require precise spacetime coordinates, and n9t jist either space or time coordinates.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

The bitch is figuring out a the spatial point of reference.

[–] nieceandtows@programming.dev 57 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I don’t remember the name of the novel, so somebody help me with this. The concept is basically that scientists invent time travel, but use it as a teleportation device instead. Set the machine by a few seconds, you teleport the distance covered by the Earth during that time. They even use the technique to plan for an assasination of Kim Jong Un. Loved that one. Some innovative sequences using the ‘time machine’.

Edit: Found it. It's actually two books (original and sequel).

Split Second - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26216031-split-second

and

Time Frame - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37946554-time-frame

The first book takes its time revealing the 'time travel', but the second book dives head first into using the technology proficiently.

[–] zerodawn@leaf.dance 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Accidentally read the second book thinking it was a stand alone. The story still held up so i made it half the book before i realized my mistake

[–] nieceandtows@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago

It’s actually marketed as a standalone sequel, so you weren’t too far off. Plus I think the first one was more of an action thriller than about this invention. I actually don’t remember much from the first one. Most of what I remember is from the second one.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I hope there is an audiobook of these, sounds right up my alley

[–] bleachisback@programming.dev 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Same spot relative to what? What object do time machines use as a reference for their coordinates? It would make sense to be Earth, so it would be in the same spot all the time.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Weeeeell, not exactly.

It is true that things are all relative to each other. But think about it this was, if you fly out in a Starship in one direction for a light year, then turn around exactly 180 degrees and fly back, you wouldn't arrive back at earth, right? Mainly because things are accelerating due to gravity. And acceleration breaks symmetry.

It would of course depend on how time travel works, but since time and space are linked, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that you follow the same trajectory in space as you move through time. But that would be a straight line in the space+time dimensions still. Think of the paths in Minkowski diagrams.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cosecantphi@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Earth is a good one if you're only interested in time traveling on your home planet that happens to be Earth. But for a more universal perspective, I suppose the CMBR is the least arbitrary frame among all arbitrary frames

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Well, I am traveling forward in time in home made Time Machine with the speed of one second per second. I do not see any problem you are describing. Now I just need to add the reverse, but I do not expect any issues of this kind either.

[–] FlyingSquid@mander.xyz 8 points 1 year ago

Oh like you can hit reverse.esrever tih nac uoy ekil hO

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bitcomrade@mander.xyz 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In this case, it makes sense to time travel from space and land on a planet upon arrival. Maybe all UFOs are just time travellers after all?🤔

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Relative to the position of the Earth, the Earth doesn't move

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] PoopyPants69@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The time machine inventor forgot that things move.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Yeah, time travellers are pretty one dimensional smh

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (6 children)

This is why I think time travel will require both an entry and an exit portal, though it’d be through the same device. You’d walk in the portal at one point in time and space, then walk out of the exact same portal at another point in time and space. You’d only be able to travel between points where that time device exists in time and space, you’re using the same portal to travel to a different time in its existence. So no traveling back to the time of dinosaurs or the beginning of time or going to any point past when the portal no longer exists anymore. It’d solve the problem of having to deal with galaxies/stars/planets moving through space and would help mitigate some paradoxes, though not all and maybe even create others.

[–] technohacker@programming.dev 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The game Quantum Break plays with this premise!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] flerp@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Calculations of the movement of celestial bodies is pretty accurate though. Figuring out where the earth was in the past is the simple part of time travel. Additionally you could just combine a time machine with a space ship and return to space nearby where the planet would be and then have a lander module or something just in case.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I thought about something like this when I was a little kid watching Back To The Future 2: "what if the ground had sunken somewhat since that mall was put there and the DeLorean emerged underground?" thinking-about-it

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Weak premise considering the principles of relativity, and how our current understanding of time travel is basically rooted in SPACE-time.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Nor the solar system, nor the galaxy, nor the universe

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 9 points 1 year ago

I always assumed that teleportation would need to also be present for time travel. Clearly, just an assumption.

[–] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But would they be skeletons?

[–] gens@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

If they were orbiting a star for long enough, maybe. (Long enough = thousand or millions of years) Maybe a skeleton in a small cloud ?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

At least this way you get to see space as you die, my worst-case scenario would be time travelling and arriving inside a concrete dam

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

It's amazing how plausible this is

[–] WeirdAlex03@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Semi-relevant Tom Scott (actually about teleportation, but covers many of the same problems)

[–] Tomassci@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Teleportation is time-traveling as it allows you to be somewhere faster, change my mind

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ekZepp@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Nice one 👌

[–] TheControlled@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

*any time

Since the universe is expanding.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Whenever Earth reaches their orbit they fall down as shooting stars.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] theFibonacciEffect@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

Well you can always orient yourself relative to the aether /s

[–] RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Not just in orbit but also space in general.

load more comments
view more: next ›