AhmedHesham said:
For example, Lorenz transformation of time means
That measurement of time changes from one observer
to another. I have read that this means moving clocks
run slower. But this can't be true because Lorenz transformation of time depends on both of the seed
of the observer and the object he observes. How can
the clock depend on the speed of the object we observe?
Each person who views the other's reference frame clock will see the other clock run slower.
However, that doesn't mean both clocks are actually running slower than the other.
Read up on the twin paradox.
The fact is, a clock is a measurement of a cycle. Whether it be the number of times an electron has gone around an atom, or the number of vibrations that an a bunch of atoms have made. That's how clocks work.
But when an object "moves" in a straight line, and has a clock "pendulum" transverse to that motion; the distance the pendulum moves is longer than if the clock itself was not also traveling. The hypotenuse of a right triangle is always longer than either leg. So, moving objects have clocks that must "go" longer distances to measure a 'tick' of time. If the clock uses electromagnetic signals, anywhere, they travel with the speed of light; and therefore, take longer "time" to complete a cycle.
That's why Einstein talked about the twin paradox. His discussion was to answer exactly the objection you just raise. However, the solution is that one of the two observers come back with less time elapsed on their clock at the end of the experiment.
In relativity, there are both "apparent" and "real" time changes. They "look" the same for both observers, but there's an objective difference.
