> I may have used the wrong name. I haven't taken
>a physics course in several years, and, while I
>remember all the information, I occasionally mix
>the names up. In this case I was referring to the
>distortion of sound waves with velocity - the
>reason you get that sort of "vrrrrr-ooooom" sound
>when a car drives past you.

That's the Doppler effect.


>> I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here.
>> Care to explain?
>
> Well, it relates back to what I was saying about
>sound. Sound distorts with velocity - that can
>easily be proven - The reason for which being
>that the waves "compress" or "expand" do to the
>velocity, and thereby the wavelength changes, and
>so does the pitch. I was thinking of time in the
>same way - as you begin to accelerate to bizzarre
>and unfathomable speeds, the time "waves"
>compress and expand, so that, although as far as
>you're concerned time is functioning normally, it
>will be distorted with respect to others.


Oh. So what you're saying is that it sounds to you like motion causes a Doppler shift in the "time waves"? That's an intriguing idea, but it falls short because it tacitly assumes a point-source for time. You'd have to have "time" waving from some central point. Also, you'd be able to pinpoint where it was in space by moving in different directions. Time would move faster as you went towards the "time source" and slower as you moved away from it.

>
> > I know I've said a lot, but have I answered
>your question?
>
> Almost. But my original question then rises from
>the grave - if time is relative, is it absolute
>time that changes? Or is there such a thing?
>

No. It's your time that changes reletive to mine. That's the only way you can measure it. If you fly off at relativistic speeds and never come back, you'll never notice any time changes between you and me. To be sure, you'd be able to calculate them knowing your velocity with respect to me, but unless you actually came back, you'd never notice that your clock ran slower than mine did.