Physic formula that states: The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_special.html The planet's actual speed through space-time. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/orbital.htm http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/75-How-long-does-it-take-Mars-to-go-around-the-sun- So now my question.... Since the Earth is traveling around the sun at a rate of 67k miles per hour; then everything on Earth is aging at the same speed of earth. If a man was to colonize on Mars, that planet is traveling through space-time at a speed of 54k miles per hour. So since Mars is running slower than Earth, would life on Mars age slower than Earth? Meaning if the people colonizing on Mars lived there for 15 years, then traveled back to Earth; would their family age much faster than him? And lets say we can colonize on a moon on Jupiter. The moon is traveling at the same speed as Jupiter, so we can assume the space-time speed is the same. Jupiter is traveling at 29k miles per hour, under half the speed of Earth. Would that mean that people on Jupiter's moon living for 30 years, come back to earth and everyone they knew is 30 years older?
Mags my man, you forgot to account for the more significant motion we ride. The speed of our Sun on it's track and then the track of the Milky-way, still in acceleration from the origin. The difference in speed of the locals accounts for squat in the grand plan. Work that out and then see if the forum is still here when you get done.
I think you'd age faster on Mars since time dilation (however minuscule) would be lower due to the slower speed.
But then again Marzy, my physicist friend says that NASA has to constantly adjust the clocks on satellites because they go out of sync as they orbit the Earth. This is based on the relativity.
There would be a time difference due to the different frames of motion, but it wouldn't add up to much in this case because the difference in relative speed (13k miles per hour) is still very low. You might see a few seconds difference in aging over a lifetime or something insignificant like that. One frame of reference has to approach the speed of light (186K miles per second) relative to the other for the difference in time to become significant between them.
The speed of our solar system within the Milky Way, or speed of the Milky Way relative to other galaxies is irrelevant because the Earth and Mars are both being carried along at the same rate by those motions. A time difference between planets would only be due to a difference is speed between the Earth and Mars relative to each other.
He's likely talking about adjustments being necessary to super accurate atomic clocks amounting to tiny fractions of a second - not any amount of difference in aging an astronaut that happened to be on the satellite would ever notice when he returned to Earth.
No I do understand now about the difference, but the clock adjustment is just a small sample size about the aging
Every body in obit around the Sun averages the same speed as the Sun, just a little slower or faster at any given moment depending on whether it's relative motion is with the Sun's track or counter. Nasa's clocks are adjusted to keep earth time. Just because they call it "Universal Coordinated Time" doesn't mean it is Universe time. It just is a name to replace Greenwich time, which is more PC these day, but that's a guess.
The satellite clocks need to be adjusted so GPS works. If they're allowed to drift (due to relativity), GPS would stop working entirely. Airplane pilots age a fraction slower than everyone else. They fly closer to C than most people. Maybe a fraction of a second over a lifetime tho. Days are longer on Mars, too. But close to 24 hr days. Since days are measured by sunrise and sunset, not by the clock, people on Mars would get way out of sync with people on Earth. The "time zone" difference changes by ~40 minutes each day.
