/sci/ - Science & Math

That doesn't make it impossible...

>>4818549


Sure wrong word. It makes it extremely impractical.

Time travel isn't possible simply because time doesn't exist. It's merely the comparison of speed between two objects.

Why would the travel reference frame be static in relation to the sun and not to the earth? Sounds just as arbitrary.

Mate, if you would be able to travel in time then I think that this would be the least of your worries :)

>>4818553
This. It's because time is a tulpic qualia.

>>4818540
nah, it moves you back to the time machine, which is on earth, and so moves WITH earth

...u never fucking seen primer??

>>4818607


How does it know where exactly in the universe the time machine was 5 minutes ago. You do know the earth is moving extremely fast right>?

>>4818658
> You do know the earth is moving extremely fast right>?
What's this absolute reference frame you're talking about and how did you calculate it?

>>4818540
Not impossible OP, just an incredibly overlooked part of time travel that everyone everywhere misses

Good job, still a faggot though

>not tethering the receiving spot to the earth

>>4818607
non-english spaeker here, i alwsays wonder how does /sci/ pronounce Primer: like Prime time, or like pree-mmer

This is a genuine concern since not only is the Earth rotating in place and revolving around the sun, our galaxy is also moving. It'd be a much greater distance after five minutes than 5,000 miles.

I think if you developed the technology to travel through time then you'd be able to do the math to work out where you would land. Or at least do a Dr.Who and have your time machine be a space ship too.

>>4818702
We pronounce it as "shitty overrated movie that should remain blissfully forgotten".

>>4818658
it doesnt need to know, thats just how i decide for my fucking FICTIONAL time machine to work. if i stand in the bottom left corner, thats where i appear wherever the time machine is, in the time that i set it to.
=p

>>4818702
wat
erm
[PRY-MERR]

>>4818540
somebody read an internet comic...

>>4818710
PRY-merr like in FRY or like FREE?

Well, lets say you make a time machine. Currently there are no known ways (at least as far as i am aware of, and please correct me on this one) except to bend spacetime by a huge force of gravity. Seeing as you should probably apply such a huge force of gravity anywhere close to earth is the first place the problem you are talking about should be irrelevant. But lets say you by chance did manage to make a machine that was not relaying on gravity, then the machine would probably be advanced enough for you to be able to pinpoint inn the place in spacetime that you would like to travel to as well as the time. That way you would only need to know where planet earth was located at the time that you wanted to go back to and the problem would be solved. - AMK

>>4818723
erm, like 'fry'

This problem is one I have never heard of before, and my guess is that there is probably a really good reason why its not a "hot topic" among most scientists. It seems irrelevant :P

Time travel is impossible since we've seen no time travelers from the future. The future is vast and contains all possible time travelers... but we've seen none of them. So they never came.

Get a clue, folks.

>>4819094
>Intelligent life outside earth isn't possible since we've never saw any.

Captcha : ignare langsoi

>>4818540

If you traveled back in time 5 minutes you would still be on Earth.

>>4818723
like prime time. EK is a stupid bitch with no reading comprehension

>The earth moves around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour

No it doesn't. Not in absolute sense. There is no such thing as absolute velocity. It is equally valid (though far less practical) to say the Sun goes around the Earth.

>>4819094
Unless the time travellers who have been back to our times were careful not to reveal themselves for whatever reason. Just because it wasnt front page news doesnt mean it hasnt happened or wont happen.

Time travel. The thing you can theorize a lot about, and still have no proof.
>what if time machines transport you to a parallel universe?
>bending the space-time, either gravity or speed; gravity would 'suck you in', while you can't go faster than light.
>tachyons
>>they are theorical, and there is no real need for them to exist.
>>inb4 tachyons can't go slower than light; this is why we have never seen them, they are constantly traveling in time (and how do tachyons help your time machine?)
>kill-my-grandma paradox

Not to say that I enjoy reading timetravelthreads on /sci/, but this time OP made a pretty valid point I had never thought about before and I guess that would be a big impracticality.

>>4819132
>>4819132
>>4819132
>>4819132
>>4819132
>>4819132
>>4819132

lmfao at all these pseudo-intellectual wannabes saying the earth doesn't move and is stationary. no difference between these fags and those 1st year philosophy students who just goes "nothing is real coz u're just dreaming, i'm not even real, there's no such thing as cows, they are just in ur dream. prove me wrong lol."

fuck off u retards, the earth moves around the sun, and that's that. stop being hippy little twats and talk like sensible adults.

>>4819166

What evidence do you have?

>>4819182
what evidence do u have u're not just dreaming? i'm just a figment of ur subconcious u fag, so stop replying and wake the fuck up.

jesus christ, u kids need to grow up and get real instead of arguing with these pseudo intellectual shit to look smart. u're not fooling anyone.

get real.

TARDIS would compensate for that.

>>4819094

Havent you heard of John Titor.

What if, miraculously, it turns out the rest of all the cosmos move in exact opposition to the Earth, so that the Earth is in fact absolutely stationary?

Wouldn't that be a lucky break for time travelers?

Or, what if you could time your trip so that you not only went back in time, but you step out onto Martian soil. That would solve a lot of problems all at once!

>>4819166
>Whatabunch of first year philosophy students, taking into consideration einstein's theory of special relativity.

Please kill yourself at the earliest convenience.

>>4819253
and those first year philo cunts are taking into consideration descartes cogito ergo sum, ur point?

get real.

>>4819257
Whenever it's convenient.
no pressure, no pressure.

>>4819261
i can't kill myself. i'm not real. i'm just part of ur dream.

>>4819275
ur gay

If we didn't know where we'd land after traveling then we'd just pop a transmitter forward or back a month and see where it lands in space.

Time travel is bullshit because building a time machine to change the past invalidates the need for a time machine once the past has been changed, meaning you never actually built the time machine, since you didn't need to.

>>>/x/

>>4819321

>implying time travel is anything more than traveling to a different reality contained in the multiverse

when you come back nothing would be changed because you only interfered with a timeline where you were wupposed to time travel to in the frist place

>>4819391
Brb, killing Hilter in every manner I can think of in dozens of different universes.

>>4819140
> Unless the time travellers who have been back to our times were careful not to reveal themselves for whatever reason.

Ah yes, the ever popular "if I don't see them they must still be there" theory on /sci/. INTERADSTING.

The sad fact for you is that the many billions of years of possible future would be jam packed with so many time travelers that they'd have then jam-packed the past during their travels. But we see nothing. Zero evidence of any such travelers at all. Therefore, there weren't any, and if there are zero, then time travel into the past is obviously impossible.

But you just keep reading your scifi and hoping that time travel is real, simpleton.