Ok, /sci/ this might be a stupid question I'm an amateur

Yes there would be time differences, but only during travel. Unless one of the planets is orbiting a blackhole, a clock on every planet would tick at roughly the same rate as the other clocks.

>>8657917
How big would the difference be during travel
lets say from the sun's earth to proxima b exoplanet?

File: time dilation equation.png (6KB, 273x201px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 273x201px

>>8657919
How fast are they capable of travelling? And how far or how long are they travelling for? Figure that out and plug them into this formula.

>>8657928
I did say speed of light in OP

>>8657917
Is decay of matter the same everywhere in space? How do we measure time with an atom clock if it is not?

>>8657934
What's the point of using simultaneously both correct and broken physics? We don't have equations to represent physics-defying physics. You can tell by trying to plug in c for velocity that everything stops working.

>>8657934
You can't go the speed of light, you can only approach infinitely close to it.

This page might help you understand the math: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html

>>8657949
I guess if you take the limit of that equation you can deduce that you time you would experience would be instant. You would be literally time travelling into the future.

>>8657952
Thank you

>>8657955
No you wouldn't.

The future 5 years from now involves me doing something somewhere.

If I travel at relativistic speeds so everything around me ages 5 years, then wherever I am isn't the future because it doesn't include me being somewhere and doing all the things I would have done had I not traveled to the future.

File: the smirky bloke.jpg (5KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x225px

>>8657913

>Relativity

>>8657998
Not that guy but the universe doesn't "revolve" around you.

If you travelled from now to a datum point five years in the future you would still be at a certain point within that universe whether it be future, present or past.

>>8658071
I'm just saying that our usual definition of the future includes ourselves. If you travel to the future, you don't get to see your future self. Therefore, it isn't really the future as defined above, it's just another when.

>>8658077
Why wouldn't you see yourself?

>>8657913
So you just mean a communication problem at places greater than a light day away? If so yeah it would be a major problem as we wouldn't be able to send data at a communicative rate.

>>8658185
Because you haven't aged 5 years.