xkcd

8555 readers

70 users here now

A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

koraro@lemmy.world

390

xkcd #2976: Time Traveler Causes of Death (xkcd.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de to c/xkcd@lemmy.world

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

alt text:

Many a hungry time traveler has Googled 'trilobites shellfish allergy' only to find their carrier had no coverage in the Ordovician.

https://explainxkcd.com/2976/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It isn't about how humans view their place in the cosmos.

It's about relativity.

Space and time are inseparable. Hence the term space-time. You can thank Einstein for that.

The comment you replied to states It's also about frames of reference, probably one of the most crucial aspects of relaticity.

Einstein has proven that time and space appear and are experienced differently for each and every observer. With the effects being significantly different depending on gravity, speed and distances.

If you could reverse time travel then the space would conform to the time you travelled to.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

If you could reverse time travel then the space would conform to the time you travelled to.

Really? What else would conform to the past point in time? Would fabric in my clothes disintegrate and transforms to something else? Would I, because I, well, didn't exist in that past? Then it wouldn't really be time travel, would it?

Or would the clothes stay, because they are mine and important for me and would I stay on earth, because that's my baseline? Is universe somehow "me-centric"? Not really likely, is it?

You need to abandon your idea of time travel as seeking in a video with rewind button.

According to our current understanding of physics time travel is impossible, but we are talking about a word where it is clearly possible, so you can't really constraint yourself with the limits as we know them now.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I don't exist in the future, yet, here I am, in the future, with all my clothes in tact.

There is nothing in physics that actually says it's impossible.

Maybe your current understanding of physics says it's impossible.

Nothing about it is about me.

IT'S ABOUT FRAMES OF FUCKING REFERENCE. Inertial frames of reference, relativistic frames of reference, etc.

(This is relativity, if you think it's about me, you obviously need to learn little more.)

*Also, I've blocked this user.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 2 weeks ago

I don't think that's a particularly useful thing to do when discussing physics, throwing a temper tantrum because someone has a more casual understanding than yours.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee -1 points 2 weeks ago

*Also, I've blocked this user.

Oh no, have you used the word relativity too many times and now you have no more arguments? :D