2 ms·
Just because you can describe velocity from any frame of reference doesn't mean all frames of reference are valid for describing time dilation. They're not. If
by spywaregorilla 4y ago
Just because you can describe velocity from any frame of reference doesn't mean all frames of reference are valid for describing time dilation. They're not. If you're not accelerating, you're not accelerating.
Either way, supposing you were accelerating towards a photon at rest, at the speed of light, that doesn't mean you would suddenly experience time in slow mo. You're going to feel "time" normally. It means that the photon would appear to be in slo mo, which isn't something easy to imagine. Hence the preference for imagining clocks that turn slower.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ubercore 4y agoTalking about a "photon at rest" is kind of nonsensical. From any frame of reference, c is c, and you'd measure the photon moving at the same speed.
- spywaregorilla 4y agoYes, that's true. Just a contrived example to try and illustrate why it's not correct to say time dilation isn't real because you experience time despite moving at c relative to a photon's frame of reference. Probably more distracting than helpful