Special Relativity. timespace correlation.

[mlip]

When you move through space time slows down, this is part of special relativity right. Hence when Light is moving at 670 million miles a hour time stops, and if you were to try and fly a spacecraft at 335 million miles an hour time would slow down by 1/2. But what I want to know is, since we are moving through space even by sitting here(the Earth spins, it orbits the sun, our solarsystem is being sucked into the black hole in the center of the milkyway, the milkyway is also moving away from the big bang) Does this mean time is actually skewed for us, does time pass differently for us on Earth than say for a being on another planet in another solarsystem that perhaps isn't moving too much?

 

[mlip]

And perhaps this can be linked to multidimensions, since almost everything moves through space unevenly time has to cope with this. I dunno.

 

[Integral]

To speak of "skewing" time or space you must specify a frame of reference to which you are comparing. No one will EVER experience a personal change in the rate of time.

 

[Grizzlycomet]

if you were to try and fly a spacecraft at 335 million miles an hour time would slow down by 1/2.

First of all, this is in fact incorrect. The formula used to find the time dilation factor is $$\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$$
. This yields a factor of 0.867 for v=.50c.

what I want to know is, since we are moving through space even by sitting here(the Earth spins, it orbits the sun, our solarsystem is being sucked into the black hole in the center of the milkyway, the milkyway is also moving away from the big bang) Does this mean time is actually skewed for us, does time pass differently for us on Earth than say for a being on another planet in another solarsystem that perhaps isn't moving too much?

I would assume so.

 

[mlip]

To speak of "skewing" time or space you must specify a frame of reference to which you are comparing. No one will EVER experience a personal change in the rate of time.

What I mean by this is for a comet going 500,000 miles an hour or more time passes more slowly than for me sitting here, this comet does not exist in the time I am experiancing.

 

[quantumdude]

What I mean by this is for a comet going 500,000 miles an hour or more time passes more slowly than for me sitting here,

But you still have to specify a frame in which the time is "slower", just as Integral said. A clock in the comet's frame would tick more slowly than your clock, according to you. But to an observer riding alongside the comet, your watch would tick more slowly than his, according to him. You have to specify a frame when you ask such questions.

this comet does not exist in the time I am experiancing.

Sure it does. The comet exists in every frame.

 

[mlip]

All I really wanted to get out of this thread is this: Since we are moving through space just by being on the planet earth, we are not moving through time as fast, my point of referance is a hypathetical planet just ouside the milky way that does not move through space at all, just time. Does anyone know how fast we are moving through space(In reference to nothing, pick a stationary point in space, that's the referance.)

 

[mlip]

Actually this would fit under general relativity, my mistake :)

 

[mlip]

First of all, this is in fact incorrect. The formula used to find the time dilation factor is $$\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$$
. This yields a factor of 0.867 for v=.50c.

I would assume so.

Thank you for the correction, I just assumed When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me

 

[cepheid]

All I really wanted to get out of this thread is this: Since we are moving through space just by being on the planet earth, we are not moving through time as fast, my point of referance is a hypathetical planet just ouside the milky way that does not move through space at all, just time. Does anyone know how fast we are moving through space(In reference to nothing, pick a stationary point in space, that's the referance.)

That's a serious conceptual error. Motion is always in reference to something. All motion is relative. When you say: "I'm traveling at 'x' m/s", the statement is meaningless unless you specify x m/s => with respect to what?. Similarly, if you claim to be stationary, the question that naturally arises is: stationary relative to what? Nothing is at rest in the absolute sense.

Actually this would fit under general relativity, my mistake :)

Actually, you were right the first time. Your question falls under the realm of special relativity.

 

[mlip]

Nothing is at rest in the absolute sense.

I guess that debunks/answers my question. I'm just starting out here, physics is ****ed up. I'm loving it. Thanks to all.