Menoman

Right, I'm pretty sure I understand that concept. What is getting me, is that in the second graph. I can't see how the times won't be the same. I mean if the clocks B1 and B2 are syncronized perfectly, and to A the time is 1 hour, between B1s passing and B2s passing, it seems that with the synchronized clocks, that time would also be an hour. But obviously since I understand relativity... that cannot be true. I understand that simultaneity is relative as well, so clock A does not see the clocks were actually even syncronized, because in his frame of reference it was not a simultaneous sync. I just can't explain the logic behind that, like i can with the other concepts of relativity.

Ok so there, I'm trying to figure out how its possible for frame of reference B, to think that time is going slow for frame of reference A. But also, at the same time, Reference A can logically say time has slowed for reference B. I can understand the first graph. B says "I'm stationary" So A moving past my 2 clocks (Which are synced) will take less time because his clock is moving slower. So in "B"s mind, it only took A 45 minutes to travel what "B" see's as an hour's distance. That makes sense to me. But the bottom graph, with A stationary with the 2 B clocks moving past. "A" will see 1 hour pass between the B1 passing, and the B2 passing, but in "B"s reference, it will only be 45 minutes? Ok basically, in the first graph. On "B"s clock, "A" passes "B1" at 12:00, and then passes "B2" at 1:00... But, on "A"s clock he passes "B1" at 12:00 and "B2" at 12:45 that is correct? On graph 2, on "A"s clock, "B1" zooms by at 12:00, and "B2" will zoom by at 1:00. But according to the "B" clocks, "B1" zooms by at 12:00, but "B2" will zoom by at 1:00 also...? Thats how it seems to me because of the syncronized B1 and B2 clocks. But the relativity thinking side of me thinks its 12:45, but logically through relativity I can't explain it. Now I understand that the relativity of simultaneity(sp?) is how this is explained, but for the life of me I cannot grasp the logic behind this, I've wrestled with it for a few days now.

This makes the most sense to me, I haven't gotten into much gravity and such yet in my lectures, so I'm trying to stay away from that for now. But this puts it into a framework I can understand I believe. As my lectures go on and on further I'll probably be back, and I'll peruse a bit to see if there's any questions people throw up that I can be of help to as well... Anyway in essence, this is a Hello everyone, and thanks for the explanations

Like many people I assume, special relativity, in particular time dilation and the lightbox example, are two hangups on my common sense. I'm under the impression that the lightbox example does not truly 'explain' why time travels slower in the lightbox moving relative to me (and the lightbox stationary relative to me) It's more of a tool that help you understand that time dilation actually exists, not a tool to help you understand WHY, just a 'description' per se. Would that be accurate? Secondly, the "Twin Example" of time dilation, something I don't particularly understand, and boggles my head quite a bit to be honest, is that we all know what relativity is, and means. So since no specific frame of reference is preferred over any other frame of reference. Why can't we put the frame of reference to the twin in the spaceship? If he was the frame of reference, then the twin on earth would move away from him at .8c, or whatever you want to make it, and then come back at him. This seems like a contradiction that no frame of reference is special doesn't it? It makes my mind think the special frame of reference is being the earth twin, because the opposites do not hold true if you switch the frame of reference to the spaceship twin... because he will not come back and the earth twin actually be younger than him... yet the frame of reference shouldnt matter?