But the real answer to that is "because time travel is a dramatic device." This is just as true for Primer as it is for all fictional scenarios involving time travel. Unless the story is about how time travel would "really" send you spinning off into space, the rules are whatever the plot requires.
It may be that the "science" behind Primer appears more coherent and reasoned out than H.G. Wells' Time Machine, but it's still fairy dust.
I find Primer interesting for the relatable human story. What are they doing with this knowledge and why?
Even Primer is fairy dust. The plot makes enough up to suspend your disbelief. For instance, I just made a rule up for my hypothetical new movie: travelling through time drops the traveler in the same location of the frame of reference they inhabit. This is always a fixed location relative to the Earth if the traveller is static relative to the Earth, and hence in the same frame of reference.
Comments
For starters, it's the only time travel movie that explains why time travel doesn't drop you somewhere in deep space where the Earth used to be.
But the real answer to that is "because time travel is a dramatic device." This is just as true for Primer as it is for all fictional scenarios involving time travel. Unless the story is about how time travel would "really" send you spinning off into space, the rules are whatever the plot requires.
It may be that the "science" behind Primer appears more coherent and reasoned out than H.G. Wells' Time Machine, but it's still fairy dust.
I find Primer interesting for the relatable human story. What are they doing with this knowledge and why?
Even Primer is fairy dust. The plot makes enough up to suspend your disbelief. For instance, I just made a rule up for my hypothetical new movie: travelling through time drops the traveler in the same location of the frame of reference they inhabit. This is always a fixed location relative to the Earth if the traveller is static relative to the Earth, and hence in the same frame of reference.