# Can I speed up time by slowing down universe? [closed]

Baseline facts:

- speed of spin of planet Earth:        1670    km/h (counterclockwise & tilted 23,4°)
- speed of Earth's rotation around Sun: 108000  km/h (counterclockwise)
- speed of our Solar System:            700000  km/h (towards star Vega / constal. Lyra)
- speed of rotation around galaxy core: 792000  km/h (clockwise tilted 60°)
- speed towards Great Attractor:        2100000 km/h (in direction of Leo & Virgo constal.)
- speed of light:                       1079252848 km/h

Question: if by any means all these speeds (except for last one from this list) would case to zero (and we would survive), could this result in a shortage of the time as we know it? eg. could this break the whole concept of our time like: if now a human can live 100 years, and these symbolic 100y are 100y in time units, would it mean that after zero-ing those speeds our 100y could result in (example) 10 years in time units from observators frame of reference located out of active/local frame of reference?

*based on: greater the speed = slower experience of time eg. "no time" for a photon. eg. if our speed would double we would experience it, as an increase of our lifespan from the perspective of time. eg. if we would speed up to c we would be immortal (frozen in a frame).

• Speed is relative. There is always some frame in which you can be seen moving at an arbitrary speed. There is no absolute reference frame. Jul 16, 2018 at 3:41
• interesting how valid on-topic question can be misjudged by 11 people on a hate train Aug 11, 2019 at 18:10
• It's a year since this was closed (by community vote) - I suggest you let it go. No one is on a "hate train", they just interpreted the rules in a way you don't like. Happens us all sometimes. It's the way voting works on SE. Incidentally I didn't vote at all on your question, as I thought you had a basic misunderstanding of relativity, hence my comment above, but voters are not required to explain why they vote or who they are - that's the rules on SE. It's anonymous to avoid people getting personal about votes. Aug 11, 2019 at 18:51

First you have to find a frame of reference. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that there exist two star systems, and all the velocities you have mentioned in your question are identical to both the systems with respect to the assumed frame of reference. So, now we have a frame of reference, and two completely identical star systems (We live on one of them).

Let us say that Alice lives on earth A and Bob lives on earth B. And they have identical atomic clocks, with same units of time. Any human on both the planets has the same average lifespan.

Now, let all the velocities of system A become 0. System A is at rest with respect to the original frame of reference, but system B is not. System B is still moving. Now, Alice measures the average lifespan of the humans on her planet and Bob's planet, with her atomic clock. She sees that, the humans on planet B live longer than the humans on planet A (Say, Alice measures that humans on planet A live for 60 years and humans on planet B live for 80 years). This is obvious as the System B has a non zero velocity with respect to the frame of reference. But what does Bob measure? He reports to his people that they live for 60 years on average (He doesn't measure the lifespan of humans on planet A). Did you notice it, they report the same lifespan to their people. But how?

Time is relative and there is no preferred frame of reference. So whenever you talk about time taken for an event to happen, you talk with respect to some frame of reference. Coming to your question, biologically our experience of time would not differ. According to us, we will live for the same amount of time (given that we use the same units for time), no matter what the speed is.

• does this actually mean that this does occur, but its in same time irrelevant to both systems that observe each other, because they cant tell the difference? eg. if we introduce 3rd party - only the 3rd party can determine the difference? in sense: two identical galaxies (A and B) are moving next to each other in a strait line... suddenly speeds of A galaxy zeros out and difference in lifespans in A and B are vissible only from galaxy C which is above A and B and observes both. so if C will peek on clocks then C can see that (example) 100h in A is 1h in B (??) Jul 16, 2018 at 8:21
• @user902300 Yes, you are pretty much right. But don't forget to determine what the frame of reference 'C' is. What I mean by that is, make sure that you understand how it sees 'A' and 'B'. If it sees A to be at rest or with some lower velocity than B, after its velocity becomes 0, then someone on C measures (with his own clock) that 100 hours on A is 1 hour on B. Jul 16, 2018 at 8:44
• This can be mind-boggling, so take it slowly. Try to fix a frame of reference (like you did in your comment), and try to analyse the effects. Hope this helps;) Jul 16, 2018 at 8:46
• I see. so to answer myself - I actually can speed up the time by slowing down first 5 speeds, but there is no way that I will be aware of it unless I am out of a local frame of reference. therefore, we cant blame speeding up our speed, as result, of our lifespan extension - or can we? <- that's actually the idea behind my question/post. Jul 16, 2018 at 9:26
• @user902300 You can speed up, but your life will be the same to you. This is not actually a situation where you extend your lifespan. It's just that your biological clock ticks slower than the other frame, so you find yourself younger than the other. And, you can never tell if you are moving or not. Whenever you say that you are moving with a velocity, it is with respect to a frame of reference. Jul 16, 2018 at 9:32

speed of Earth's rotation around Sun
would case to zero
and we would survive

How so? If Earth gets velocity of zero, instead of spinning around the Sun it will be attracted to it and get melted :) Changing the speeds arbitrarily will change relative positions of planets and other bodies dramatically.

speed of spin of planet Earth

This question is more interesting. Well, we'll have drastic climate change and polar night during half of year on each point on Earth; there also be a haft-year polar day (midnight sun) and that one will be much hotter on equator than that which exists on poles now. I'm not sure if we would survive such a change, that's a complex process.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the overall time. There's many molecular processes which have time constants independent of any starting conditions and most of the biological processes in our bodies are such.

• yeah, that's why >> "(and we would survive)" :) Jul 16, 2018 at 9:40

No way... actually time is distance between events... suppose you're having a cup of tea... and now I measure time as the distance between two events for eg... the event that you took the cup and the event you took a sip out of it... the distance between this two is time... whatever the velocity be, you feel this as same... the difference in movement of time appears to an external observer... if you are moving with a higher velocity, to an observer outside your events appear to move slowly... just like slow motion in movies...