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

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

    • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

      • Aux@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days 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
          ·
          5 days 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.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

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