In this OP

http://able2know.org/topic/186538-1
I noted that the squeezing up and slowing of a clock was counter-intuitive. While we know by actual measurement that it really happens, why shouldn't we speculate on a viewpoint that imparts a sort of intuitive revelation

Another way of looking at the Speed of Light: It's actually

**infinite**, easily explaining

1. …...why when it approaches apparent velocity c the clock appears to have stopped. Of course if we launch it at noon then if its speed is infinite an observer stationed anywhere notes as it passes by it still reads 12:00

2. ......also easily explaining its apparent increase in mass. Of course if we're underestimating its velocity we're also overestimating its mass

3. ......a little more difficult, its apparent compression: But a moments' reflection reveals that if we see the leading and trailing edges of the object at the same instant that it appears to be flattened in the direction of motion

Then why do we underestimate it, setting it at c

Eg, allow me a trip at v=max to the Red Planet 5 light minutes distant

(where Marty had presumably synchronized his clock with ours--while for purposes of simplicity we neglect any relative motion between our planet and his) and takeoff is scheduled for noon

So at the instant I depart, by conventional relativity I judge Marty’s clock to instantaneously jump ahead from 12:00 to 12:05, remaining at that reading ’til I arrive, to me a very quick trip. Yet Marty advises I must have been in flight for 5 minutes ’til I explain about relativity “Oh then," he remarks (I am translating from Martianese) “I see you’re wrong because you were in motion while I’m stationary” So far, everything in agreement with Albert

“No," I conclude, "not necessarily." I merely maintain that in my alternate view of things my velocity was much, much greater than c, neatly accounting for its still reading 12:00 “Then,” puzzles he, “why does mine read 12:05"

It’s because there’s another way of looking at the space-time continuum. Inferred in Einsteininan relativity though unstated, to all stationary observers “actually” the time everywhere is the same. But I propose time-at-a-distance to be

**completely indeterminate**
So, at any point in space consider yourself at the center of an infinite number of concentric circles at distance d, the time at each being t (now) plus or minus d/v, thus neatly accounting for the apparent 5-minute difference

No, Einstein wasn’t wrong and it’s perfectly proper to call the speed of light c. I’m merely presenting another way of looking at The Entire Megillah, first to satisfy the Intuition and second to promote further speculation along this line