What?
I thought that as one body sped up, its relative time would slow down as it neared the speed of light, thus making the puppy's universe age very slowly.
No, the puppy would also see the universe aging very slowly.
And we would see the puppy aging very slowly.
Eh? The puppy lives in our universe.
Rest of the universe’s POV: puppy appears to experience almost no time (puppy ages very slowly)
Puppy’s POV: the rest of the universe appears to experience lots of time (the rest of the universe ages very quickly)
Aporia you are mistaken. Er, here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
oreso, I think I see the source of our confusion.The time dilation effects arising from special relativity and from general relativity are of a very different character. Are you imagining the puppy in an inertial reference frame or an accelerated reference frame?
The principle of relativity dating back to Galileo, the first principle of special relativity, states that no inertial reference frame is privileged above any other. Therefore if a man observes slow aging in a fast moving puppy, the puppy must observe the same thing, slow aging, about the fast moving man. You seem to feel that if a puppy is observed to age slowly, it IS in some sense aging slowly, and must therefore observe everything around it to be aging quickly relative to its slow rate of aging. This is intuitively plausible but incorrect, and exactly the sort of asymmetrical reasoning that special relativity rules out. The counterintuitiveness of this result gave rise to the twin paradox which was resolved by general relativity, the theory of time and space in non-inertial reference frames. Specificaly, if the puppy ever intends to get back to earth to compare its age with a twin puppy as in the twin paradox, it must accelerate itself and thereby break the symmetry of inertial reference frames upon which special relativity bases its results.
Wikipedia’s introductory articles on special relativity might be useful here, but I’m not sure how well written they are. An undergraduate physics textbook might be a better resource.
ah! good stuff. My fault. 
I was being silly.
oreso
but don’t you see that is all in the mind, it has nothing to do with the actuality of movement. imagine you are in the universe, and is spinning because some 4 light years away, there is a stationary ball. but you can’t see the ball so you don’t know you are spinning, but you are still spinning even if you do not know it.
Not the case. The same can be applied to any object, whether it has a mind or not.
The earth is travelling quite fast around the sun. It is spinning quite fast too. The solar system is moving quite fast around galactric central point. The galaxy is moving quite fast away from the centre of the universe. With all these vectors, you would think moving about on earth would be a real mathematical chore. Fortunately, we can ignore them all because it is only relative movement that matters. Thus we can simply take our reference: the surface of the earth, and just go from there.
You are aware of course that everything you can see is probably already moving at the speed of light relative to the stuff on the other side of the universe? What happens when i try to move in the same direction as this expansion, do i find that i cannot accelerate along that vector? Of course not, this is not a problem because there is no absolute reference.
Not that your language is very clear, i think i get what you mean and there is nothing wrong with it.
Movement can be relative to things you arent currently aware of. As aporia reminded me, this is not to say acceleration can be viewed in such a symmetrical way, but movement certainly can.
let us say a space ship is moving relative to the sun at 4000km/h. there is only the sun and the spaceship. so if the sun suddenly disappears and the spaceship is still doing the same thing. does the spaceship suddenly stop? I understand what you are saying, one can not tell some thing is moving without it being relative to something else. but that is all for the ability to tell. I mean, does the universe exist if one of the humans die? of course not, so our perception of relativity of movement has nothing to do with the laws of mathematics, physics.
just because you can not tell if a spaceship is moving or not, does not mean it is not moving.
If there is ONLY the sun and the spaceship in the universe, then yes of course, you can no longer be said to be moving. If however there is other stuff in the universe, then you have no doubt accelerated to a speed relative to them too.
You still do not appreciate the importance of the observer in modern physics. Everything depends on POV.
Your analogy is too loaded for me to answer, but suffice to say it is irrelevant as we are talking about POV in a different way. Rocks can have a POV for example, that is to say, we can talk about how the rock ‘experiences things’ or more precisely ‘interacts with the rest of the universe’.
Im afraid it does. If distance is between two points, and there is only one possible point, then, without any change of distance, by definition, it is not moving.
You are placing too much emphasis on the HUMAN POV. Ignoring movement as an absolute concept. there must be a background in order to tell if something is moving. but movement can occur without the background, though indistinguishable from rest.
so you are saying is basically
8/infinity = 0
90/infinity = 0
therefore, 8=90.
Edit: all this thing about movement has nothing to do with time dilation, which is impossible. you must explain what is meant by time.
first of all, though i realise your principle objective is to win arguments and not to learn, your wilful ignorance is severely impeding my ability to relate an argument to you in terms you will understand.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
If you wish to continue, i suggest you learn some of the terminology and reasons behind my claims so we can sing from the same hymn sheet.
Like i said, doesnt have to be human. Rocks have a PoV from a physical standpoint.
Without any possible evidence for movement, if the movement has zero effect on the universe, how can you claim that movement is being performed? You are speculating.
No, i am saying what i said. There can be no movement if there is no distance, and distances require points of reference.
Acceleration has everything to do with time dilation. An account of time is not needed to experience its effects (in short, it has been directly observed with clocks, etc).
I see Time/Space as manifestations of the same phenomenon.
In many ways Time and Space are reference points of potentiality.
As entropy increases the universe fractures into multi-dimensions {theoretically 4-10 or more}, just as the Forces {Gravitational Force; Electromagnetic Force; Strong force; Weak Force}, hypothetically, have. We can imagine a moment right before the Big Bang when all was unified and Time/Space was inexistent, and therefore matter was, as well.
As temporal beings, we exist within many dimensions simultaneously.
As our participation in one dimension increases, our participation in the others decreases, giving rise to the phenomenon of ‘relativity’, but we can never relinquish our participation in any one dimension. Theoretically if we become absolutely spatial, we can become timeless – eternal.
Time represents change or movement – and as temporal beings we are always in the process of becoming and so in constant movement and change. This constant change expresses itself in Need.
This is why the construct of Self is a general interpretation of a phenomenon with no substance. As we can never be in a ‘here’ or a ‘now’, but can only think of them in the past or as a potential future, so can we never be ‘I’, since by the time we conceptualize it we have ceased being the ‘I’ we are referring to, and also because they can all be infinitely divided with no absolute core. {Nothingness}
Here Heidegger gives us an interesting interpretation of Being.
The concepts of ‘here’, ‘now’, ‘I’, are defined by our speed of thought – our temporal speed, as determined by our dimensional participations, determines our conceptualization of change and so,in turn, determines our perceptions of time and space in general.
So, matter seems hard or soft, stable, unstable, constant, ephemeral, in relation to our own temporality. That is the difference in speeds of change makes matter substantial or insubstantial in relation to us.
The concepts of a ‘present’ or a ‘here’, just as the mathematical concept of 1, are general representations without any specific meaning.
The mathematical concept of ‘1’ is an imagined space/time point that is never, since by being it would be an absolute (theoretical singularity) and would drop out of space/time. There is no more a ‘1’ as there is a ‘here’, ‘now’ or ‘self’. If there were, there would be no life.
What there is are general interpretations of potentials for ‘1’ or ‘here’, or ‘now’ or ‘self’, which are all refering to the same thing from different vantage points.
‘Here’ and ‘Now’ are thought of in the past, that is they represent time/space encompassed within an occurrence that is past and which is framed between the beginning and the end of the thought or realization or some arbitrary time/space reference points.
Time/Space is how our mind makes sense of universal flux, interpreting the slowest alterations as substantial and the fastest alterations as ethereal.
We are always in the process of being present or being here or being Self and this expresses the overall universal instability. To actually Be is to become inert, it is to cease becoming – timeless, spaceless.
It is to cease.
In essence, mans struggle to escape deterioration and the suffering caused by Need are struggles towards ones own non-being.
Man’s secret death-wish, a desire to cease Becoming and so make life obsolete.
Given this, it becomes clear that as entropy increases the universe becomes much too complicated for our minds to interpret by finding patterns to predict and abstract it.
This is why we perceive the universe as tumbling into Chaos.
Our brain evolves slowly, in relation to universal entropy, and so must invent technology to hope to keep up or to find patterns in phenomena which are fracturing into multi-potential structures, making them far too complicated for our minds to comprehend – comprehension being the brains ability to find patterns and store them in memory.
For this reason consciousness is in constant resistance to entropic decay. It is only our unidirectional temporal focus that makes consciousness and knowledge (our brains ordering what is disordering) possible, since if the reverse temporal focus - that is towards unification and order where entropy decreased - would force a resistance that would make consciousness impossible (disordering what is ordering). Knowledge would be impossible and so would, as a consequence consciousness.
Anyways, that’s what I think.
I hope it wasn’t too vague.
Time, as modern relativistic physics puts it, is just a ratio - a relationship between the speed of light and the position of the photon.
Haven't we already gotten past the fact that the metaphysical nature of time will always be vague?
oreso
let me put it this way. if you are drifting in space and you see nothing but your arm and you rotate your arm, though your arm does not appear to move, you can feel it moving. so is your arm moving or not?
also this whole POV is putting too much emphasis on the VIEW. what about feeling. i mean, just because you can’t see does not mean the world does not exist. i mean there are blind people in the world, but their existence does not deny our existence.
Distance according to Vision requires a point of reference. but explain the rotating arm example.
let me give this example. when you move along with the train, the train appears to be stationary. but if you remain stationary, the train appears to move. so you can not claim movement, but in relation to you, how it appears to your vision. I claim, though movement can not be perceived in nothingness, it can nevertheless be felt. so movement does not only have the visual aspect, but also the feeling aspect. in fact it has little to do with the visual aspect, see my arm rotating example.
Clocks move, we see movement so we infer time. time is periodic motion, it is physically related. so it can not be dilated, whatever that means. time does not slow nor go faster. but the subject in question does that. there is no time as its concept suggest, but a physical representation of repetitive periodic motion.
there is no time and space. but space in itself.
Satyr
The point of language is to communicate, and you have failed to communicating understanding, so despite the amount you have typed, you have invoked nothing.
Ah, but what you are directly feeling there is the acceleration of your arm, the force that is applied to it to make it move, not the movement itself.
Also, if your arm is moving relative to the rest of your body, then this is obviously movement. The two points are your arm and your torso, and they can move relative to each other.
Eh? I think you are concentrating on VIEW too much. All blind people lack is a direct appreciation of a very narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum.
I’ll repeat, a rock can have a physical POV. It doesnt have to have senses.
let me give this example. when you move along with the train, the train appears to be stationary. but if you remain stationary, the train appears to move. so you can not claim movement, but in relation to you, how it appears to your vision. I claim, though movement can not be perceived in nothingness, it can nevertheless be felt. so movement does not only have the visual aspect, but also the feeling aspect. in fact it has little to do with the visual aspect, see my arm rotating example.
Then if motion is the only measure of time, then there is no problem. If it offends you, whenever i say “time is dilated for object x from POV y” then simply shut out the jargon and say to yourself “every part of x is moving slower compared to y”.
So, “a clock is accelerated to 299,791 km per second (almost light speed) relative to my dog, and my dog will never hear or see it tic within its lifetime.”
of course there is no “time and space”, we call it “spacetime” nowadays, try to keep up. 
no, I am assuming that you see in a way that your arm does not move. but feel its movement. my point is that, you do not have to see things move for them to be moving, you can feel the movement.
since as you said, movement is relative to the observer. Then there is only movement in relation to the observer. so when something does not move, you can only said that it does not appear to move from your PoV. but that it does not move in relation to others for which you have no knowledge about.
or say Y is moving faster than X. when you see a runner and a stationary observer. the runner runs faster than the stationary one, but time does not slow down for either. The movement of the clock is in no way influence by the movement of the observer or the non-movement of the observer.
so a person can travel 9m in one sec or a car 900m in one sec. the one sec is the same for both. but the distance travelled is different.
Not quite, the relative time dilation is just so ridiculously small that you would rarely notice or care.
Take a higher speed (or more time sensitive) experiment and relative time becomes vital, there is a huge amount of data behind this if you want.
(The maths is the lorenz transformation, x(square root(1-(v^2/c^2))) as you can see, v has to be pretty big for there to be a significant effect)
You can only directly feel (as in a pressure on your arm) acceleration.
There is a sense that relates the position of various bits of your body, but im pretty sure this is just intuitively extropolated from the other senses to aid coordination, its not a metaphysical awareness or something.
Of course. But it is still a completely legitimate statement; i can say “it is not moving” because it is assumed that if i was talking about a POV other than my own i would have specified as such.
What Atrebates said.
I wont bother posting evidence you wont read but a google or wiki search will come up with the experiments if you have a flash of reasonableness. 
From the POV of someone watching both moving objects, yes of course, a second will have passed equally. However, the car will have aged slightly less during that second (or if you prefer, all the parts of the car that would indicate an aging process moved slightly less than they would have done if it wasnt accelerating).
Atrebates
so what does it mean to have time slowed for 4 secs?
oreso
so there are many ways of telling whether something has moved or not, you can feel movement, not just see it.
but don’t you see that you are placing yourself in the centre of everything. you are not talking about a POV but YOUR POV. so how do you know there is nothing else out there in the nothingness of space? just because you can not see it, does not mean you are not moving relative to something else as you would like to put it.
from my feeling, or POF as I call it, I can tell movement without even seeing it. in this way, even a blind person can speak of movement. so the concept of movement is not entirely visually related.
this is the crux of what I can not understand. how can “a car age slightly less” what does it even mean for a car to age slightly less. this is my problem in relation to relativity, how can what you said be even contemplated?