So imagine you want to go back in time to see the Ancient Egypt

You're constantly moving forward in time, yet you don't float off into space. Why would moving backwards in time be any different?

You're thinking of it as if you'd be in the same 3rd dimension while time traveling. Theory has it that time travel would be towards 5th dimension in which you can see time as it is and place yourself in any time.

>>7954078
Well, I kind of thought about it . I think we don't float off in space because we're in the now so it's impossible because of gravity but if you went back 4000 years the earth wouldn't be in this exact position so... you'd be floating.

>>7954064
You are not the only one ^^ It always bugs me that the protagonists of movies end up in the same place on earth. Rather than getting problems with time they should get problems ending up in wrong places or too far off the ground. There also could be a accident when they "teleport" into a rock or something.

>>7954102
Into a rock or into a living creature. This has been bugging me since childhood. Even if you calculated the the distance exactly and ended up in the same place but 4000 years ago, there could be a goat standing in this place and you've just merged with him :/

>>7954064
>>7954102
>>7954107

All motion is relative. So no, the Earth is not moving, at least not relative to itself. There is no "here" in space that is independent from time. So it's actually not a problem.

>>7954384
This.

I'd be much more concerned about rematerializing in a building that wasn't there or something.

File: quake-telefrag.jpg (43KB, 600x370px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x370px

>>7954078
Because you don't know how this brand of time travel works.

>>7954064
>Will this scenario be possible?

Yes. Read "Skylark of Space" Skylark series. There's a shielding defense device in it that cuts the space inside the sphere off from the rest of the universe. The instant it does this, it starts "floating" away from the planet. It is completely stationary relative to the universe and everything in the universe starts moving on a different trajectory relative to it. It is all hokey sci-fi, still a good read, but your time machine can do the same thing to a point.

Why? Because time travel is totally >>>/x/ related and to do it in fiction, you can make up any BS you want.

In most time travel sci-fi the location in space is calculated into the trip. So, you don't end up in space, underground, or similar. Which does happen in some sci-fi. Like the dragons of Pern series of books. Sometimes they get things wrong and end up in a rock.

>>7954107
Or, you telefrag it like in Quake games.

>>7954064
Because elliptical orbits are trivial to calculate and mathematical pedantry doesn't make for good TV.

>>7954420
>telefrag it
How rude! What if your ancestor is there? Recall that this is time travel; you can't just make up the rules as you go along.

File: 1449685372048.gif (427KB, 200x198px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 200x198px

>>7954435
>Recall that this is time travel; you can't just make up the rules as you go along.

Great Scott!

>>7954102
>>7954107

possibly stupid question but wouldn't electromagnetic force prevent us from just "merging" with another object in spacetime?

>>7954064
>Instead of Egypt you end up floating somewhere in space because because the planet and even the galaxy is inconstant motion.

Relative to what, exactly? How does your time machine decide which point in space is really Stationary(tm) so it knows how far away and in what direction to move you when you go back in time?

>>7954064
> So you get into a time machine you've just built and go back 4000 years.
> Will this scenario be possible?
No, time machine isn't possible.

>>7954960
No because general relativity does not predict EM force

stand in one spot, go back to where that spot was 4000 years ago via time travel.

How could you possibly end in a different place?
Not sure how you travel through time but my way you just go where the spot you are standing in was 4000 years ago...

>>7955208
because the earth constantly moves and rotates?

>>7954392

I'd be much more concerned with what happens when matter just appears out of nowhere in a universe.

>>7955710
It's safe so long as it's not recursive. Basically you just have to stop your entire body's wavefunction from diverging, that's all.

Guise if i travel forwards in time at the rate of one second per second for the next hour, will i find myself floating in space as the earth has moved on in its orbit around the sun by then?

Also can i go back to yesterday and prevent my birth? It seems so much less messy than an hero.

>>7955734
>It seems so much less messy
Believe me, it's not. The paperwork is something else entirely.

>>7954427
>Because elliptical orbits are trivial to calculate
Not that there's any margin of error calculating earth's position 4000 years ago

>>7954064
>>7954078
it's a question of how the backwards travel actually works, and so entirely theoretical, and not worth thinking about. it's a matter of velocity and gravity, but most people assume time travel to be some kind of teleportation.

There's no absolute frame of reference. If you are time travelling relative to the Earth's frame, you would end up in the same place. If it's the Sun's frame, you'd end up somewhere in the Earth's orbit. If it's the frame of the centre of the galaxy, you'd end up somewhere in the galaxy. If it's the frame of some planet in some other galaxy you might end up in inter-galactic space. Why would one frame of reference be privileged over another in your description of time travel?