791
time to think
(lemm.ee)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
791 points (98.6% liked)
Memes
55863 readers
679 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 7 years ago
MODERATORS
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
Earth frame isn't inertial
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.
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?
There are two ways of looking at it.
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.
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".
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.