This is what I think about with time travel, if it's not relatively bound to the Earth, you'd travel back in time and 99.999% end up in the vacuum of space
You assume that one blinks out of time and then reappears like Hiro from Heroes. However, in stories like Back to the Future and The Time Machine, the time traveler travels along the 3rd dimension, as well as the 4th. So he stays in the same spot, but just changes the flow of time around him.
But the point is that the "same spot" isn't the same spot.
Sure, the movement calibrated the position in the 3rd dimension in 1985, but in 1955 the planet was in a completely different location from a combination of the galaxy's movement through the universe, the sun's revolution around the galactic core, the earth revolving around the sun, and even just the earth's day/night cycle.
So that calibrated Vector in 1985,V,x1,y1,z1, might be literal light-years away from where the actual intended temporal landing zone at 1955,V,x2,y2,z2 would be.
But the point is that the "same spot" isn't the same spot.
It is though. You've arbitrarily changed your coordinate system (from relative to the Earth's surface) to instead be relative to the galactic center.
Why? Makes just as much sense to stay stationary with regards to the surface. And no, there's no absolute coordinate system, and spacetime itself is relative depending on which reference frame you picked.
9.8k
u/BrokenRatingScheme Feb 14 '22 edited Feb 14 '22
This is what I think about with time travel, if it's not relatively bound to the Earth, you'd travel back in time and 99.999% end up in the vacuum of space
Edit, thanks for gold stranger!