The Hollywood movies and television shows based around time travel has some serious flaws. I understand they are only fiction and cater to our imaginations but I don’t see any correlation between the earth and time travel.
If I were to step into a time machine expecting to be sent to the exact same spot on earth in the year, say, 1955, how would the machine compensate for the distance the earth has traveled in the past 50+ years?
I assume the time machine, itself, would have little regard for my desire to visit the same spot in which I was standing before I zoomed off into the past or future. With that in mind, I suspect that if time machine were ever possible it would need to be in the form of a spaceship so that after traveling in time you could fly to your desired spot.
How would the machine prevent myself and itself from materializing in the middle of a gigantic asteroid or giant Sequoia redwood tree for that matter?
This is somewhat borderline but the gist seems to lean more toward cinematic treatments. I could go into my whole “Malcolm MacDowell as H.G Wells” riff but best to just shift this over to Cafe Society.
With cynical laughter that flick-moguls haven’t even touched Connie Willis opportunities,
Veb
I actually remember reading a sci-fi short story once which dealt with this very issue, and claimed that the ship would still be affected by gravity even if travelling through time.
Think of it this way, we are currently time travelling one minute per minute, yep gravity keeps us at the same spot, unless we utilize some sort of propulsion to move us in space.
I can see how putting energy into increasing our speed through time, would not automatically mean putting energy into changing spatial location.
And in any event, isn’t this all relative. I mean there really isn’t such a thing as a fixed location in the universe, is there?
You want the time machine to end up somewhere else? Where else would it be? Staying in orbit around the Sun is about the only consistent thing for a time traveller to do. Actually, though, come to think of it, I wouldn’t expect non-gravitational forces to have any effect on a time machine, so you’d better at least put it into Earth orbit. Otherwise, you might end up zipping around the Earth as it rotates beneath you, or oscillating back and forth through the volume occupied by the Earth (better time your return just right, or you’ll get rocked).
I think the general thinking in hollywood considering time machines is as follows.
The most important point not yet mentioned is that time travel isn’t possible. This means that when a picture is being made (or a book I suppose) that contains time travel, the actual physics behind it aren’t particularly important seeing as the entire darned process isn’t even possible.
I might offer this other example. In the movie Xmen Rebecca Romajn’s(spelling) character has the ability to shape change. You’ll notice that she changes into Wolverine once. They aren’t the same height and weight, so where does this extra matter come from. Matter can’t be created or destroyed right. Why does nobody really bring this up? Well, I’m glad you asked - it’s because the entire process is in-friggin-possible to begin with. The exact same thing goes for time travel.
Hmmm. Which is canonical when discussing the X-men movie, the movie or the comics?
In the Marvel Universe entry for Mystique, it states that she can change shape but not add or subtract mass. So she can take on the appearance of Wolverine but she’s going to have the same mass she always has. Her really impressive talent IMHO is her ability to transform inanimate objects. For example, at least once she was depicted transforming one of her belt skulls into a functionong blaster pistol.
The standard Marvel Universe explanation for those people who can add or subtract mass (Wasp, Henry Pym in his various identities, etc.) is that they obtain the extra mass from an extradimensional source and shunt mass to that dimension to reduce their own. There was an issue of Iron Man in which Henry Pym actually had a portal open to the mass-source dimension.
my bad, thanks for clearing that up. I’m by no means a comic book expert. Anyhow, my point remains the same. That being that there is no point discussing the flaws in a process that isn’t even possible to begin with.