That makes perfect sense now. So the strong and weak force propagate at c also, huh? Since all of the forces that we know of move at the same invariant speed, then every conceivable time keeper must slow down by the same factor when in relative motion.
Can you recommend a good book where I...
How can you say that the processes didn't just slow down? The spacetime interval could be viewed the same because every conceivable time measuring device would slow down too. This really makes "processes" and "time" seem like the same thing.
Scratch that. Calling it the doppler effect really wasn't what I meant to say. If we are talking about a single photon, then if B were moving the opposite direction of the light, and A was a rest with the emitter, then from A's perspective:
After 1 second passed, A would be 1 light second away...
I think I get it. Our concept of spacetime never changes for us. If we assume c is constant, then distance must always depend on the passage of time. If a second is different for me than it is for you, then a meter is different also.
In the analogy, B views the emitter and detector as...
This is the main thing that gets me
Yes, B's clock will appear to tick at a slower rate if it is moving relative to A. That is only according to A though. That isn't B telling A that it took one second, that is A looking at B's watch and deducing that B must say that it took one second. The...
I have read this over and over, and I swear its contradictory. I could easily be wrong though. If light travels at a constant rate according to the observer, this means that the timing device must be at rest with the observer.
"because of the difference in rate of time flow between the two"...
Light will always travel at at c, and a light second will always take 1 'my second' for light to travel. Why does the distance need to contract for this to be true? The only differences in the amount of time it takes for the beam to make the journey are from me applying my seconds to some other...
See that's where I was thinking differently. Since time is always the same for you to you, I don't see why the light would ever take 2 seconds instead of one. Our scenario is something like this:
Object A: Stationary with respect to the emitter and detector.
Object B: Traveling away from...
If they are both moving only with respect to each other, then wouldn't the difference in the flow of the rate of time occur in each one, but only perceived by the other? I'm not seeing how you can say that one counts one second but the other counts two seconds when they are just moving apart...
Looking at space as a reference frame is sort of the problem, if I'm not mistaken. Even if there were an immaterial grid in space that we could use to measure distance, we still couldn't exceed the speed of light, according to SR. This hypothetical grid would effectively be another object...
Wait, I think I see what you are saying. Knowing that time changes with speed doesn't tell you that there is an upper limit. It does tell you that moving faster than another object can cause you to perceive the passage of time differently than that object. No upper limit has to follow from this...
Peter, I do want my mistakes to be corrected, which is why I posted here. I make an analogy to try to grasp the concept of time not being this static ticking thing that everyone usually assumes is true, and you tell me that I clearly don't understand because I used the numbers 1 and 9, or that...