this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
778 points (98.4% liked)

Memes

50212 readers
1044 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aux@feddit.uk 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 month ago

I've explained it in another reply. It's not about being "stationary".

[–] Fluke@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That isn't possible. Time is as part of space as the other dimensions. Time is distorted by mass, just like space.

You can't move "purely on the Y axis" any more than you can move "purely on the time axis", or vice versa.

Off topic: Why is it a new idea that the observed motion of the universe around us is affected by "faster time" in denser areas of space? Why is that not blindingly obvious? Bwuh?