As I understand relativity (extremely simplified), from our perspective an object's passage through time slows down as the object speeds up, time ultimately stopping as the object reaches the speed of light. I assume the converse also holds: an object's passage through time speeds up as the object slows down relative to us.

If we on earth are moving rapidly through space (at least with our orbit), are there objects that are closer to completely stationary? If so, what would happen to our perception of that point's experience of time? Theoretically, if an object could become fully stationary, how would it experience time?


closed as unclear what you're asking by WillO, sammy gerbil, ACuriousMind, Gert, Wolpertinger Aug 17 '16 at 9:47

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There are no fixed points in the universe. That's basically it. $\endgroup$ – user108787 Aug 16 '16 at 19:32
  • $\begingroup$ If not perfectly fixed, as close to it as theoretically possible. Objects can't move the speed of light, but we can theorize what happens as they approach it. $\endgroup$ – alexdbland Aug 16 '16 at 19:40
  • $\begingroup$ There is no absolute motion nor any absolute lack of motion. That is objects don't have a velocity without reference to how you are measuring it. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Aug 16 '16 at 21:13
  • $\begingroup$ @count_to_10 As I know, the CMB background determines a fixed speed vector, but it was probably not the OPs intent to ask. $\endgroup$ – peterh Aug 16 '16 at 23:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @peterh I didn't even consider that, but I think the OP wants to basically "nail" something down. Thanks very much $\endgroup$ – user108787 Aug 16 '16 at 23:18

Sure we can theorise about the fast end of velocity, but we know for a fact that for an object to remain in one place, the gravitional forces all around it have to balance perfectly.

It's based around recursion of the same idea.

Assume we have a golf ball floating in space.

Now assume this golfball is pinned in one place by a system of planets, gravitionally balancing it.

This is very unlikely.

Even it did occur, all of those planets would have to maintain their relative positions to maintain the pinning of the golf ball, or move in a very definite pattern to maintain the golf balls position.

This is very unlikely.

enter image description here

Image source: www.video blocks.com

Then the sun that is at the centre of the planetary system would need to be pinned in one place, by other sun's, to prevent it, the planets, and the golf ball from moving.

This is very unlikely.

Then the galaxy that contained the golf ball, planets, sun and the other sun's would itself have to be held it place by other galaxies to stop any movement.

You guessed it ( I hope :) , this is very unlikely

And so on, on bigger and bigger scales.

That's what it would take to keep the golf ball fixed in one spot. And that is disregarding photons hitting the golfball, or vacuum fluctuations moving it, or a zillion other influences.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.