Where have you read this? Typically, what is meant is that a stationary (in space) object still has a '4D'-velocity through spacetime: it's travelling 1 second per second.
So, does that mean if the object ''moves'' it will be travelling ''slower'' in time? so to speak? Are we talking of rate of ageing?
See, that's why I formulated it so vague: I remember hearing about this, but I don't remember any of the details involved. Hence my request for a source from Willem too.
I just had a look into a Brian Greene book. But in the end it all relative, hence the twins. One stays at home the other goes on a rocket ride.
The same same as 1 foot length is 1 foot length Circular and nonsensical We (scientists)* have determined the speed of light exact value is 299,792,458 metres per second And since we have also determined the second to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom and the metre to be the metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum we come full circle with 3 definitions defining each other * colloquial I am not a scientists The only one of the 3 is detectable - the radiation and exist in and of itself There is no second out there waiting to be found Likewise no metre floating about for a scientists to grab hold of and claim They are non existent, except as CONCEPTS Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's because it's a ratio. My scale models are 1/4 inch per foot - or 1/48 scale (no unit). You would not really say your object is travelling at speed 1, any more than I would say my models are scaled at 48. You would say your object travels at a ratio of 1:1 with the passage of time.
(Missed your reply; sorry.) Ah, so that's where I got it from. I guess my username is very apt.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tell me then: what is the speed-in-time of a properly functioning clock when you are in the same frame as said clock?
But didn't you yourself say that in post #8 and #13?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However, it being possible to be uttered by a fool doesn't mean it's wrong, so I don't understand what your point is. Please point out the inconsistency then. Also, I notice you've dodged my question, even though you quoted it. Can you please stop being intellectually dishonest for just a moment, and answer the question?
What is "t"? What is "t_B"? But I see you've now answered your own OP. You've derived speed = c, which is exactly what you were asking about, so now you know what it means. I'm glad to have helped you figure it out!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So get two clocks then; I don't see the problem?