That makes sense. I think I get this quite well. This reminds me of when one is flying high in an airplane, you have the illusion that you're not traveling that quickly, which is due to the draw distance; if you we passing more closely the terrain would appear to move rapidly in the opposite...
So motion, or lack thereof, is relative. Does that mean if we could ascertain the boundaries of the physical universe then we could (in theory) determine the speed and direction of everything in relation to everything else? I mean if we, for instance, assume the universe as shaped like a box...
Ok, so things move relative to something else (for how else could we tell it's in motion, right?).
I want to add something, just bear with me -- got to get some grub.
So I got this from an article on wikipedia that covers Einstein's train thought experiment:
A popular picture for understanding this idea is provided by a thought experiment similar to those suggested by Daniel Frost Comstock in 1910[13] and Einstein in 1917.[14][12] It also consists of one...
Thanks for the link. Look I know this might infuriate some as it looks like pig-headness, but take I can't but help think there is something off with the concept. Maybe these experiments will help me to change my mind. So again, excuse my contention, and I'll look at the link with an open mind...
Fair point
"In relativity, as has already been stated here, you have to get rid of "simultaneous" or "concurrently" as a physically meaningful concept."
Ok thanks,
See, when I hear the idea that someone ends up younger upon returning from their spaceship journey compared to those on earth, I can't but help think it's lies.
The way I look at it (and admittedly from a non-physicist pov) is everything happens concurrently; therefore the only way...
So, basically I don't understand why "time" is meant to slow down. Honestly I've not read a lot on it, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance.
What has the speed light travels at got to do with time?