>be timetraveller >start timemachine >enter yr 3000

>>9017229
Moved relative to what?
And why would that be the reference frame?

>>9017254
This is basically the best argument period for why time-travel is impossible.

>>9017254
>Moved relative to what?
solarsystem has moved through space

File: 1342187587391.jpg (49KB, 400x500px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 400x500px

>bring a shitty /tv/ - /lit/ SF trope thread to /sci/
>keep posting it

mfw

>>9017270
Moved relative to what?
And why would that be the reference frame?

>>9017229
>end up in space because earth and the whole solarsystem has moved
this is why qpu alignment is so important

We need latitude and altitude like universal coordinate system to refer position and space-time. :D

>>9017288
>Moved relative to what?
your mother
>>9017299
>qpu alignment
explain pls

File: 68e.png (371KB, 1594x1312px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1594x1312px

>>9017308
i hope you're sitting down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpk2tdsPh0A

>>9017259
Only if you're a brainlet
>>9017270
Again, relative to what? Go read a fucking 8th grade science book before you spout this horseshit. The universe has no preferred reference frame. There is literally no reason why a time machine would be displaced from its initial position

>>9017331
>There is literally no reason why a time machine would be displaced from its initial position
you obviously have no idea how time machines work

>>9017331
>no reason why a time machine would be displaced from its initial position
yeah right. but earth is displacing/moving

>>9017254

When you travel in time you move from point A to the point A in the future. Problem is, Earth is no longer in point A in the future as it orbits around the Sun and the Sun orbits the center of our galaxy. You'd have to predict where the Earth will be positioned in the future to effectively time travel, if the time travel allows moment in space along with time.

>>9017367
exactly

>>9017367
>You'd have to predict where the Earth will be positioned in the future to effectively time travel, if the time travel allows moment in space along with time.
That's not that hard, you realize those calculations are done every time NASA lands something on another planet right? There's no reason that calculation would be a challenge, especially at a technological stage where time machines exist

That's right, but the main question now is: how do you travl in time?

>>9017229
Time is relative to the higgs field.

>>9017373

I'm not saying it's hard I'm just explaining to you what OP meant since you or whoever seemed to had difficulties to understand.

>>9017428
That makes no sense since the higgs field is a scalar field. It is invarient under lorentz transformations.

>>9017392
travelling forward in time is relatively straightforward

>>9017254
if you made the entire solar system travel back in time would it occupy the same spot?

>>9017482
>the same spot
Relative to what?

>>9017347
Relative to what

>brainlets not understanding the concept of reference frames

>>9017367
>>9017254
>>9017259
Untrue. People at the equator and in orbit constantly travel into the future faster than people living at the poles, however, they are still on the earth (or in orbit).

>>9017392
It's not right, actually. You would still be where your time machine was going to be in the future. You've just skipped to that point in time.

OP is a moron. I've been time traveling forward in time for 37 years one second at a time and the planet hasn't moved relative to me at all. That's not going to be any different going backwards in time.

If we could get spaceships off planet just by time traveling a month that'd be the cheapest goddamn launch system ever. But you're gravity's bitch. It ain't gonna let you go just cuz you changed the date.

>>9017315
Lmao

>>9017923
That's a specific way of conceptualizing time travel. If time travel meant you got into a machine and then traveled forward in time, landing in the same machine, there'd be no issues

But if we're talking about a machine that could take you back in time, to before the machine existed, or forward in time to a specific location not where the machine was, you'd have to get some coordinates.

The former is basically nothing more than a cryogenic freeze while the latter is not only a time machine but also a teleporter.

Or am I being dumb

>>9017229
A time machine would conserve its inertial frame of reference

>>9017920

They aren't using time machines.

File: qpu misalignment.jpg (57KB, 525x394px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 525x394px

>>9017299
>>9017229

>>9017373
There are few people in the world I'd like to sock in the face more than those who dismiss an answer with a completely different issue.

>>9017254
everything is moving relative to everything else dickwad, the entire universe is expanding

>>9018452
>latter is not only a time machine but also a teleporter.
The later would almost have to involve some FTL travel, so yeah, you'd know where/when you were going.
But even saying this implies time flows universally the same everywhere, and concepts like "right this second on mars" have validity.
And that's not how the universe works.
https://www.google.com/search?q=relativity+of+simultaneity

noone has travelled into our past yet bcuz the jews destroyed the world

>>9017487
>>9017331
>>9017254
Relative to the rest of the universe, fucktard.

>>9019323
or relative to his mom

>>9017259
It's merely an argument for why time-travel would be impractical.