this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
930 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

10348 readers
1881 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
930
epidemiology (mander.xyz)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
82 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (4 children)

You're just knowledgeable enough to know that Earth moves, but not intelligent enough to know that there's no absolute reference frame it moves in respect to.

If you don't continue travelling with the Earth along its path when you time travel, you could literally end up at any random point in the universe, unless you pick a different, arbitrary, body to move in reference to.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

But the universe is also constantly expanding. So the frame of reference becomes obsolete because it's at an entirely different point in space now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Throw thousands of satellites back in time but each offset. Measure when you get a broadcast from them and how far back you sent them and bam, we find out for reals.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Then there's you who forgot that we actually do have a universal reference frame with the cosmic microwave background.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The CMB is everywhere, and anywhere in the universe it's the same distance from a hypothetical observer. I fail to see how you can use it as an absolute reference frame.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think they're trying to say, it can be considered to be a non-accelerated reference frame, where stuff like planets and stars would be accelerated.

Though I have a problem in understanding how it could be taken as a reference frame in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Indeed, it can't be a reference frame, as even if it's not accelerated, it's everywhere, so it doesn't have a position or orientation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Not only that, it's not even a single object. It's just the name given to a group of radiation, which is ultimately just light going randomly here and there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It isn't a single "thing" you are some distance away from. It's photons remaining from the early universe that can be found everywhere without direction. Pick "one" of them and you can track your speed relative to it. It's the closest thing we have to a universal reference frame.

Also see the later questions on https://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html

Edit: I'm stupid, photons move at light speed of course. But you can detect a colder and hotter side of the CMB and use that as a reference frame.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Nah, I know the thing with reference points, but that's a matter of navigation and relativity.

In reality, a point in space is a point in space, like, a specific "pixel" of the Universe (oversimplified) that might be occupied with something or not.

We just can't anchor this point since we don't know what reference is absolute and the laws of physics can be applied to every inertial reference, so this doesn't help.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's not that we don't know which reference point is absolute, but there are still absolutely defined 'points in space', it's that there is no absolute reference point, and so there are just 'points in space' relative to whatever arbitrary body you decide to make your reference frame.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Then we have to define what body serves as a reference point. "Relative to the observer" doesn't seem to work here, since we try to decide where should the observer themselves go.

If so, then why should it be Earth? Why not the Sun, or the center of a Milky Way, or literally anything else? As you said, it's arbitrary. And how do we choose the reference frame?

Doesn't make any sense outside spacetime as a whole.