Suppose you are traveling towards a clock. Would you not see

it will only appear faster when you are also moving at the speed of light, in which case the clock will appear to be running twice as fast

any speed slower than light will appear normal because light speed is a universal constant, theres only non-light speed and light-speed

>>7975188
Unless you are traveling at like a quarter the speed of light(that's a random number) the effects would be so minuscule they wouldn't matter.

>>7975191
what?
Relativity says that it should appear slower. But with the thought experiment in the OP it would be faster. Which is it?

The problem is how we perceive things, light is not a good indicator of relativity at the near-light speeds needed to notice a chance of relative time-frames. To you the clock would seem at a constant speed as you would also experience time dialation because of your high speed.

>>7975191
That's a dangerous assumption. Space expands faster than light and although it's speed is constant space is not. When light is bent around galaxies things get fucked up

>>7975207
*I worded that badly. Your eye's perception of light is not a good indication of what's actually happening.

>>7975207
You see the clock moving faster. What mechanism exists to make that an illusion?

File: clock.png (32KB, 794x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 794x400px

light from the future (wrt the present time light) would deflect the present-time light and hit his eyes instead

so the clock would appear to be running faster, until he slowed down

>>7975222
But relativity says that it will go slower.

so the faster you go, the sooner photons from the future will reach your eyes

i think youd see a double image of the second hand being both forward and regular in time since both present and future photons would reach your eyes

then once you hit light speed only the future photons will make it to your eyes

ergo an interesting but visa vis pretty basic question

>>7975236
How is it basic, if you don't even know?
>i think youd see a double image of the second hand being both forward and regular in time since both present and future photons would reach your eyes
Holy shit ahahaha

>I don't know anything about differentiable manifolds but here's my 2 cents on relativity

the thread, part 10219023871241. Saged and reported, do your part /sci/.

>>7975211
I'm ignorant, but doesn't space expansion constitute a transport of information, and therefore it shouldn't be allowed to happen faster than light?

>>7975244
I know what a differential manifold is. Throwing big words around doesn't answer the question basic question: What happens in this situation?
>>7975246
Regions of space are not bound by c. Only things traveling through space.

>>7975252
Basic question*

trick question, clocks don't actually exist.

Light that already travelled toward your position before you accelerated will hit our retinas at a faster rate because you are racing towards it while it hurtles towards you. You perceive it as sped up. But you're actually seeing the past in fast forward.

If you're far enough away to need to get to the near- light speeds needed to see these time dialations, you're going to have hundreds of thousands of kilometers of light that is already a few seconds or minutes old.

Isn't time supposed to slow down relative to everyone else the faster you go?

>>7975279
Thats the issue with this.
So far the thread consists of question-dodging or ambiguous answers.

File: Nonsymmetric_velocity_time_dilation.gif (122KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 256x256px

>>7975188
the speed of the light it emits is constant in your frame of reference so no .

time in all frames moving relative to you goes slower .you could use this theoretically to time travel into an earlier future then you would have otherwise experienced if you didnt go at relativistic speeds .

File: 1024px-Time_dilation.svg.png (33KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1024x1024px

>>7975195
>But with the thought experiment in the OP it would be faster.
no it wouldn't time from the clock is traveling towards you at speed C .
the time you observe at the clock is given by special relativity time dilatation equation .

seriously look at the diagram in wikipedia its simple as fuck to understand and is the logical consequence of a constant lightspeed which is just an observable fact .

You're confusing time with physically watching a clock and so are 99% of the morons in this thread.
OP's question is literally answerable using the same thinking as you use in doppler shift problems - the clock appears to run very slightly faster. This doesn't really mean that "time" is going faster.

>>7975188

If you close your eyes, does time stop?