>>13697487>The reason you don't have to worry about time dilation is because there isn't oneYes there is. Time is fixed, and one could say that only one minute is the same as one year in the past, but this isn't enough. If we add the further assumption that the rate of ticks on any given clock is uniform, then we have a fully consistent story.
More explicitly, suppose that on a given day, let's say the 1st of April 2015, and on a different day, say the 1st of August 2015, the present moment of time is the same. Then, because it was the 1st of April on the first day, and it was the 1st of August on the second day, then it follows that it was the 1st of April on both days. Let's call this assumption "The uniformity assumption". Now suppose further that one uses a clock that ticks more slowly the first time around, but ticks at a rate of 1 minute on the second. Then, because the second tick is 1 minute slow, that's 1 minute less per second and thus one minute less per minute, and thus the total number of minutes will be 1/60 fewer, so on the 2nd of August, it will take 1 minute and 59 seconds (and thus, in the end, about 1 minute and 59 seconds later) for the clock to reach the present moment. However, this reasoning doesn't work because the rate is the same, so the time elapsed between the second tick and the present is the same as the time between the first tick and the present. Thus, there is no inconsistency. Thus, the uniformity assumption doesn't work.
