Moving faster makes time slow down, slower time go faster why?

[Alan McDougall]

Moving faster causes time to slow down and moving slower to speed up why?

 

 

Experiments/physics have shown that two objects approaching each at great speed will notice the clock of other object passing them going relatively slower than their own, why is this?

 

Alan

[zapatos]

Moving faster causes time to slow down and moving slower to speed up why?

 

 

Experiments/physics have shown that two objects approaching each at great speed will notice the clock of other object passing them going relatively slower than their own, why is this?

 

Alan

Is this a physics question or a philosophy question?

[swansont]

It's a consequence of the speed of light being the same in all inertial frames. If you are moving relative to me, I will see any light you emit as moving at c, rather than c+v or c-v. For that to work, length and time can no longer be invariant quantities.

[Alan McDougall]

Is this a physics question or a philosophy question?

 

 

 

What on earth makes you think this philosophical , it is obviously a question about physics?

 

What if the two objects stopped and checked each clock against the other.Then there would be a difference between them , a twin paradox of some sort, surly acceleration would also make a difference, one object could be moving at steady speed and the other at a huge acceleration, what would happen then to the clocks on the objects relative to one another?

Edited August 20, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[zapatos]

What on earth makes you think this philosophical , it is obviously a question about physics?

Because you asked 'why'. Physics does well with 'how' and 'what', but not so well with 'why'. Philosophy on the other hand generally tries to address 'why'.

[md65536]

Because you asked 'why'. Physics does well with 'how' and 'what', but not so well with 'why'. Philosophy on the other hand generally tries to address 'why'.

Please note that instead of derailing the discussion or discouraging the asking of questions with semantic arguments, swansont has already answered the original question in post #3.

 

What if the two objects stopped and checked each clock against the other.Then there would be a difference between them , a twin paradox of some sort,

 

Yes, that's the twin paradox (a common sense paradox but not a physical one).

Usually you would start and end with the two clocks at rest and at the same location, to remove ambiguities in the possible measurements.

surly acceleration would also make a difference, one object could be moving at steady speed and the other at a huge acceleration, what would happen then to the clocks on the objects relative to one another?

Acceleration doesn't directly matter except that it affects velocity. It adds complication; the twin paradox with periods of constant acceleration is covered here: http://en.wikipedia....spacetime_paths --- I think that the link shows that the time difference depends on the spacetime path of each twin. The relative velocity of the twins is important but only to the extent that the elapsed travel times affects their spacetime paths. Likewise acceleration is important only to the extend that it affects their spacetime paths. That is, a near-c burst of speed for only a second (according to the "stay at home twin" at least) will not make the clocks off by more than a second.

 

The "paradox" refers to the twins' clocks relative to each other. You can't have one object moving at constant speed relative to the other, while the other moves with great acceleration relative to the first. The twins' speeds relative to a third reference point doesn't factor in.

Edited August 20, 2012 by md65536