You used to be able to enter an exact address on this site, but the server would overload under heavy traffic as the rotation calculations are CPU intensive (geocoding is also expensive). I solved this problem by precomputing a grid of transformations across 26 out of the 91 available moments in time and reducing the geocoding resolution to about 200,000 cities.
EDIT: Oh, I see. It does exist for 0 Ma. Perhaps add a 0 Ma "present" item to the "Jump to" pulldown? <strike>Perhaps prune cities for which only 0 Ma data exists?</strike> Random thoughts. Thanks for your thing.
Note that the existing app can simultaneously show more than one city. I missed that at first.
I was struck by how rolling back 150 million years ago, South America and Africa were part of the same land mass (that is, the Atlantic Ocean had disappeared) but the British Isles was still separate from Europe.
edit - correction - to an earlier thread
"How the Cretaceous coastline of North America affects US presidential elections
Along that ancient coastline of a shallow sea, plankton with carbonate skeletons lived and died in massive numbers, accumulating into large chalk formations on the bottom of the sea. When the sea level dropped and the sea drained through the porous chalk, rich bands of soil were left right along the former coastline. When that area was settled and farmed in the 19th century, that rich soil was perfect for growing cotton. And cotton production was particularly profitable, so slaves were heavily used in those areas."
So two notes.
1) It would be nice to track glaciers, they used to be truly massive during past history and it would be interesting to see them recede and more land being above water level
2) Going the other way would be interest too, what would the earth look like in 100,000 or million years?
200 million years ago - joined
66 England seems to have left Scotland and NI and sunk
John Playfair on the work of his friend the geologist James Hutton who first realised the incredible age of geological features.
Of course, Playfair lived in Edinburgh - "this dream in masonry and living rock".
This will have killed many time travellers in the future's past.
Circular motion is not, it is absolute. (Although the center of the circle may also be moving at the same time, and that motion would be relative.)
What is absolute is not circular motion, but proper acceleration and vorticity of a particular congruence of worldlines. But you can describe those phenomena perfectly well in a reference frame in which, for example, a person riding along on a rotating platform is at rest. The reference frame will not be inertial, but that does not mean it is any less valid. For that matter, we routinely describe phenomena on Earth using a reference frame in which the entire Earth is at rest, not just its center; that is perfectly valid as well.
This is a side note, but you really think that's a good way to describe something? You sound like you found some buzzwords and wanted to make a sentence out of them.
> But you can describe .... will not be inertial, but that does not mean it is any less valid. ... that is perfectly valid
Sure it's valid, but that was never the question in the first place.
It still has an absolute component. And in the context of this discussion (time travel) that absolute component means you will have to take the motion into account, as opposed to relative motion.
No, I just used standard terminology in physics.
> It still has an absolute component.
Yes, but "motion" is not part of what is absolute.
> in the context of this discussion (time travel) that absolute component means you will have to take the motion into account, as opposed to relative motion.
No, it doesn't, because there is no such thing as "motion" apart from relative motion. So the time travel device can't be using "motion" to determine what it does. It could use the other things I described, but not "motion".
A writeup of the methodology is available if you're interested.