4 ms·

You just described it. Time passes slower at high velocities for example. after 6 months on the International Space Station (ISS), orbiting Earth at a speed of

You just described it. Time passes slower at high velocities for example. after 6 months on the International Space Station (ISS), orbiting Earth at a speed of about 7,700 m/s, an astronaut would have aged about 0.005 seconds less than those on Earth. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

bowsamic 3y ago
Time doesn’t pass slower at higher velocities unless you compare it to a clock that is moving relative to you at that velocity
- windowshopping 3y ago
  So then....what is absolute time? This would imply our own clock on earth is moving much slower relative to a static inertial frame of reference, right? given the speed with which the milky way is hurtling through space? doesn't that mean we're experiencing a dramatically slowed down version of "true time" or "base time"? And then also, does the velocity have to be constant in some direction? i mean what if you're moving back and forth one inch at the speed of light, would time still be slowed for you? what if you're moving back and forth one micron?
  - mr_mitm 3y ago
    Easy: there is no absolute time.
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    There is no base time. In the point of view of the thing moving quickly away from us, OUR clocks are slower. For both of us, the other’s clock seems to tick slower. The situation is symmetric. This is why it’s called relativity, there is no objective static frame of reference And yes even if you were moving back and forth by one micron at close to the speed of light then an observer stationary relative to you would see your clock tick slower
- ramblerman 3y ago
  do you feel this is a useful nitpick. You are correct, but I feel like "to our time (humans on earth)" is kind of implied.
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    The user wrongly thought there was an absolute time, a notion that I have now corrected. I don't think that's a "nitpick"

bowsamic 3y ago

Time doesn’t pass slower at higher velocities unless you compare it to a clock that is moving relative to you at that velocity

windowshopping 3y ago
So then....what is absolute time? This would imply our own clock on earth is moving much slower relative to a static inertial frame of reference, right? given the speed with which the milky way is hurtling through space? doesn't that mean we're experiencing a dramatically slowed down version of "true time" or "base time"? And then also, does the velocity have to be constant in some direction? i mean what if you're moving back and forth one inch at the speed of light, would time still be slowed for you? what if you're moving back and forth one micron?
- mr_mitm 3y ago
  Easy: there is no absolute time.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  There is no base time. In the point of view of the thing moving quickly away from us, OUR clocks are slower. For both of us, the other’s clock seems to tick slower. The situation is symmetric. This is why it’s called relativity, there is no objective static frame of reference And yes even if you were moving back and forth by one micron at close to the speed of light then an observer stationary relative to you would see your clock tick slower
ramblerman 3y ago
do you feel this is a useful nitpick. You are correct, but I feel like "to our time (humans on earth)" is kind of implied.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  The user wrongly thought there was an absolute time, a notion that I have now corrected. I don't think that's a "nitpick"