In reply to No Time :
I mean yeah, and it's about child abuse. I'd say either one is too far, IMO.
In reply to No Time :
In reply to Stefan (Forum Supporter) :
I just saw the comment and its been deleted.
Wally (Forum Supporter) said:
Nope, that hospital may be in the same location on earth, but our itty bitty rock has been spinning around a large shinny thing, then our whole solar system has been spinning around others as part of the Milky Way, which is itself hurtling though space in all sorts of fun directions. That's the issue with time travel, you jump backwards in time even a few seconds and in reality you'd pop into the middle of the cold vacuum of space.
Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:Wally (Forum Supporter) said:
Nope, that hospital may be in the same location on earth, but our itty bitty rock has been spinning around a large shinny thing, then our whole solar system has been spinning around others as part of the Milky Way, which is itself hurtling though space in all sorts of fun directions. That's the issue with time travel, you jump backwards in time even a few seconds and in reality you'd pop into the middle of the cold vacuum of space.
Frame of reference, on both counts. Your motion is relative to your starting point.
What you are suggesting is breaking several laws of physics with respect to inertia. All time travel breaks is one, and quantum mechanics has us questioning if it's really a law...
Frame of reference, on both counts. Your motion is relative to your starting point.
What you are suggesting is breaking several laws of physics with respect to inertia. All time travel breaks is one, and quantum mechanics has us questioning if it's really a law...
Umm, no. Realizing that the Earth is not at the center of universe does not break any laws of physics and zapping back in time and ending up on Earth still is what does not jive with inertia. You can say your average velocity was zero with respect to the planets surface, though. It is not, however, the only way to do it, nor the most precise.
Astronomers need to worry about things like that. I am an engineer, so I can claim that I am at the center of the universe, if I want to. I don't bother because the orbital mechanics math gets really ugly.
Fascinating discussion. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Passed this van on the highway Saturday.
Seems like every few pages we need a repeat:
matthewmcl (Forum Supporter) said:Frame of reference, on both counts. Your motion is relative to your starting point.
What you are suggesting is breaking several laws of physics with respect to inertia. All time travel breaks is one, and quantum mechanics has us questioning if it's really a law...
Umm, no. Realizing that the Earth is not at the center of universe does not break any laws of physics and zapping back in time and ending up on Earth still is what does not jive with inertia. You can say your average velocity was zero with respect to the planets surface, though. It is not, however, the only way to do it, nor the most precise.
Astronomers need to worry about things like that. I am an engineer, so I can claim that I am at the center of the universe, if I want to. I don't bother because the orbital mechanics math gets really ugly.
Actually....
Conservation of momentum requires that you stay in the same spot in your frame of reference, no matter the motion of that frame of reference.
And since the Big Bang started from a tiny point, from which the entire known and unknown universe expanded from, and there is no "outside".... the Earth IS the center of the universe. So is everywhere else. Because all points in the universe were all the same place.
You'll need to log in to post.
