The Science and Physics of Back To the Future
overthinkingit writes "A scientist has tried to apply serious math and physics, including the Law of Cosines, to analyze how the DeLorean in Back to the Future travels through both Time AND Space: 'in order to pull off the kind of time travel we see in the Back To The Future trilogy — the kind where the traveler is transposed in time, but remains stationary in the same relative position to where he/she left — the DeLorean would have to be an outstanding space ship, in addition to its already laudable work as a time-ship. According to Doc Brown's stopwatch, Einstein the dog travels precisely one minute into the future on this first jump, arriving, relative to their frame of reference, at the same location he left. But how far has this reference frame itself traveled during that one minute?'"
Since it was in space for 0.0000E+999 seconds, i.e. never.
It did travel in time and moved from one point to another in the universe (to stay in the same spot on earth) but it didn't "travel in space", hence no need to be a spaceship.
as serious math?
Did a communications major write this?
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
But how far has this reference frame itself traveled during that one minute?'
Relative to what? Relative to itself, it hasn't traveled at all. And since we don't know the mechanism for time travel, there's no reason to use any other reference frame. Really, until we understand how they are supposed to travel through time we can't discuss the interactions of reference frames across time skips.
ceci n'est pas une
Distilling down time travel for the masses requires some dumbification of the minutia. Did you see "Primer"? Excellent, but required a flow chart. That's why the BTTF series was more popular.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Because a second/minute/year/millenia ago that spot was occupied by empty space. The earth is moving very fast through space.
You're assuming some immutable aether to give an absolute reference. Why assume that the place the object might appear later in time is some position stationary with respect to Sol, but not to the galaxy? Or the parent supercluster? Or some other object? We've abolished the Machian idea of an absolute reference frame by now.
There is no absolute frame of reference in space or in time. By taking into account the motion of the Earth around the Sun and around its axis, he is arbitrarily picking implying the heliocentric-ecliptic coordinate system is the absolute frame of reference.
To be honest though, I can't suggest a better way of doing this. The DeLorean can simply pop out of existence in one spot in spacetime and pop into existence at another. If this ability is a given, I'm not sure its necessary to treat travelling through space separately.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
I call AC. ACs don't get to call BS.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Nah, it was at the beginning of the first movie when he was showing off how the input panel worked.
This is a messy discussion. They don't address the problem and they don't not address the problem. I mean, if you wanted to argue against my point, you could mention that the ability to precisely place the vehicle in the same relative point on Earth would also mean he had the ability to any point in the universe instantaneously. Seems like he'd be even more excited about that than time travel.
Makes the ol' head hurt. ;)
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Notice in Revision 2 (the Locomotive), there were no contrail.
Also notice that in Revision 2 (the Locomotive), the movie ends just as the Locomotive disappears directly into the camera, with no image existing showing the aftermath of its departure from a time frame, so you can't say whether it left flaming trails for certain.
Animated series are never considered canon except by special recognition by series creator.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?