5 ms·

I dont get why people say (with reason, Im not contesting) time passes slowly for a fast-moving object. Since there is no fast moving object since its all relat

I dont get why people say (with reason, Im not contesting) time passes slowly for a fast-moving object. Since there is no fast moving object since its all relative. My (wrong) understanding is that when you observe a fast moving object (relative to you then) then you should perceive this object as moving slowly in time. And my understanding is that we all go to the speed of light, since its all relative (which would explain why e=mc2). There is a bit I dont get in there. Namely, its relative but its not. I also have to admit I never tried hard to learn more about it.

leereeves 5y ago
> Since there is no fast moving object since its all relative. I don't know if it will help you, but the explanation that worked for me was: "If two events occur at the same place in an inertial reference frame, the time between the events will be shorter than in any other inertial reference frame." In other words, each observer sees time slow down on/in objects that are moving fast relative to them (i.e. greater time between events). For example, if a spaceship zips past Earth at nearly the speed of light, someone on Earth will see the clocks nearly stopped on the spaceship, but someone on the spaceship will also see clocks nearly stopped on Earth. As you said, it's all relative - including time. Edit: As you brought up the twin paradox in a now deleted question, I should point out that this is indeed "wrong" (or just not applicable) to that scenario. This analysis is only for inertial reference frames and ignores perceptual differences due to moving toward or away. The twin paradox introduces a really mind blowing idea called the relativity of simultaneity. Basically, all the asymmetry in the twin paradox is introduced while turning around.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- quadcore 5y ago
  Basically, all the asymmetry in the twin paradox is introduced while turning around. Cause light goes at speed of light. Nice. Im intrigued by matter now. What is it exactly it does to a photon if I attach some to it. Edit: or more like, time must be why a photon doesnt teleport (or even exists), so matter does something to time. Matter and gravity must be the same thing or something. I wish I had time to study, love it.
- quadcore 5y ago
  Is there other things/particles going at the speed of light in a vaccum? If no, why? Whats so special about those photons? Could there be (in the maths at least) things/particles going at no speed whatever is the referential frame (in other words they are always in your frame like if they were infinitly distant from everything)?
  - 8note 5y ago
    Anything massless moves at the speed of causality
    - quadcore 5y ago
      I have another question that's burning me. Has velocity always the same magnitude in space-time? Or rather (cause certainly not), can an object "trully" have varied velocity in space time (other than in terms of direction)?

leereeves 5y ago

> Since there is no fast moving object since its all relative. I don't know if it will help you, but the explanation that worked for me was: "If two events occur at the same place in an inertial reference frame, the time between the events will be shorter than in any other inertial reference frame." In other words, each observer sees time slow down on/in objects that are moving fast relative to them (i.e. greater time between events). For example, if a spaceship zips past Earth at nearly the speed of light, someone on Earth will see the clocks nearly stopped on the spaceship, but someone on the spaceship will also see clocks nearly stopped on Earth. As you said, it's all relative - including time. Edit: As you brought up the twin paradox in a now deleted question, I should point out that this is indeed "wrong" (or just not applicable) to that scenario. This analysis is only for inertial reference frames and ignores perceptual differences due to moving toward or away. The twin paradox introduces a really mind blowing idea called the relativity of simultaneity. Basically, all the asymmetry in the twin paradox is introduced while turning around.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
quadcore 5y ago
Basically, all the asymmetry in the twin paradox is introduced while turning around. Cause light goes at speed of light. Nice. Im intrigued by matter now. What is it exactly it does to a photon if I attach some to it. Edit: or more like, time must be why a photon doesnt teleport (or even exists), so matter does something to time. Matter and gravity must be the same thing or something. I wish I had time to study, love it.
quadcore 5y ago
Is there other things/particles going at the speed of light in a vaccum? If no, why? Whats so special about those photons? Could there be (in the maths at least) things/particles going at no speed whatever is the referential frame (in other words they are always in your frame like if they were infinitly distant from everything)?
- 8note 5y ago
  Anything massless moves at the speed of causality
  - quadcore 5y ago
    I have another question that's burning me. Has velocity always the same magnitude in space-time? Or rather (cause certainly not), can an object "trully" have varied velocity in space time (other than in terms of direction)?