- #71
PeterDonis
Mentor
- 45,968
- 22,821
No, it's physics. Your dismissive attitude here is not going to get you anywhere. Physics is not done by waving your hands. It's done by understanding its laws.davidjoe said:Very, very literal construction guys
No, you wouldn't, because people cannot move at C. People are timelike objects; photons are lightlike objects. Those are two physically different kinds of things, and concepts like "perceive the passage of time and distance" only apply to timelike objects. They do not apply to lightlike objects. That is the physics; that is what the laws of relativity say. You can either accept that and try to understand it, or dismiss it and end up having your thread closed.davidjoe said:I think if I were to take photons out of the statement, and just utilize people instead, which otherwise do perceive the passage of time and distance, it would be “fair” or fairer at least, to say that they, with anything else, would no longer perceive the passage of any time or distance at C.
No, it is not a true statement, it's a false one. You really, really, really need to learn what the laws of relativity actually say instead of continuing to make baseless wrong claims.davidjoe said:Realizing that it will be said they cannot reach C, I’ll go ahead and agree in advance, though it’s still a true statement the perception of time or distance travelled would stop at that point
This is not correct either. The correct statement is that "rate of time flow" as you are using the term here has no physical meaning. You, right now, are moving at 0.9999999c relative to cosmic ray particles reaching Earth. Is your time slowed? No. That is the physics. The "time dilation" of you relative to the cosmic ray particles is just a coordinate artifact.davidjoe said:and slow, to very nearly stop, extremely close to it.
Then you should definitely not be making such confident statements about what you think relativity says. You should not be making statements at all.davidjoe said:I’m soft in understanding on the subject of the boundaries of reference frames.
I can't speak for other members, but you are younger than me by a number of years. And my last formal course in anything, including math, was about four years before your last one.davidjoe said:Can I ask if 52 is on average, about a generation or more older than most members here?