4 ms·
At some point will ISO-8601 have to be updated to include a field for difference in speed of time?
by gglitch 3y ago
At some point will ISO-8601 have to be updated to include a field for difference in speed of time?
- layer8 3y agoThere is no difference in speed of time. Time always passes one second per second.
- achates 3y agoNot true, on Fridays after lunch time can sometimes pass as slowly as 3 seconds per second.
- aurizon 3y agoI know some bores so good that 100 seconds passes, and I shake my watch ~ 1 second has passed, so there is a subjective localised field around some people..
- seanhunter 3y agoI've been in some 15min standups but actually take 30mins wallclock time, during which interval years pass.
- c54 3y agoTo a local observer yes, but to someone moving at a different speed no! FloatHeadPhysics does a good job explaining some of this https://youtu.be/OpOER8Eec2A https://youtu.be/OpOER8Eec2A
- layer8 3y agoNo, time still passes at one second per second for any observer.
- lxgr 3y agoOnly if you disregard observers in different frames of reference interacting with each other, which you shouldn't when you need high precision and it comes to projects spanning Earth, Earth orbit, and the Moon. GPS wouldn't work without accounting for relativity, for example.
- kijin 3y agoYou're missing the joke. It's still one second per second, only that everyone's second looks different.
- layer8 3y agoExactly.
- lxgr 3y agoYeah, I guess I don't see what's funny about that statement. Unlike "sometimes a second is longer than a second" (not literally true but it makes some sense in the context of relativity), this one just seems like a tautology to me.
- kijin 3y agoYeah, it might not be funny, but the tautology draws attention to the fact that there is no privileged frame of reference. In other words, the only thing we can say without qualification is that a second is just a second in the same frame of reference. All other statements must be heavily qualified. Even things like "A's second is longer than B's" are only valid in some frames of reference and not others.
- lxgr 3y agoEinstein would beg to differ!
- icapybara 3y agoI think Einstein would agree. Time is relative but you always experience 1 second per second no matter where you are or how fast you’re going.
- lxgr 3y agoBut you can observe somebody or something in an accelerating frame having experienced time at a different rate. In the twin paradox thought experiment, one of the twins really has aged slower than the other (or, from their point of view, the entire earth has aged faster than themselves). In that sense, relativity has effects more tangible than distortion of observations across a large distance.
- dudeinjapan 3y agoEinstein's watch would beg to differ with Einstein!
- notatoad 3y agoone earth second per earth second, or one lunar second per earth second?
- gglitch 3y agoMaybe it would be more precise to include a field for something like "gravity offset"
- withinboredom 3y agoMy time library considers measuring time from different frames of references: https://github.com/withinboredom/time https://github.com/withinboredom/time From the earth frame of reference, the lunar day is different than from a lunar frame of reference.