• klay@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

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

      • klay@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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.ukBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.ukBanned from community
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’ve explained it in another reply. It’s not about being “stationary”.