Hacker News Reader

Comment by ramblerman | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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

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?

Easy: there is no absolute time.

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

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.

The user wrongly thought there was an absolute time, a notion that I have now corrected. I don't think that's a "nitpick"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com