you might conclude you're (they're) traveling at a speed many times c
This is incorrect. You will never "conclude" (observe) that anything is traveling faster than c relative to you.
Well from what I understand the closer you get to the speed of light,
Difference in what clock readings?
Relative to you, you aren't moving.
Yes, yes, I do understand about relativity. Again, I'm assuming an observer who doesn't. When he passes Mars, noting the reading on Marty's clock 5 minutes ahead of his for instance, if a relativist he assumes a relative velocity near c, if he isn't, then many times faster than c, etcetera ad infinitum
No you don't understand about relativity.
this doesn't make sense (in any frame of reference). The measurements made by an observer has nothing to do with whether the observer understands relativity or not.
Any observer is motionless relative to himself
(and if he is seated in a spaceship will be motionless relative to the spaceship),
and every measurement any observer makes would prove he is motionless relative to himself.
What you are saying really doesn't make sense.
No matter how fast you travel - your clock will tick at the same rate.
You needn't apply 99% c, you only need a train to experience this frikkin obvious event.
If you are looking out a moving train's window, objects outside will appear to be passing by at a faster rate than if you were observing them whilst jogging.
It is YOU who is moving faster, not time slowing down - your watch will tick away the same rate in both scenarios.
It doesn't matter how fast the train travels - Result is the same.
You could travel at c X 1,000,000,000 - result the same.
weird thing is, we are travelling many times c,….
Oralloy, there is no absolute frame of refernce. You are confusing the word "inertial" with the term "absolute". It doesn't work that way.
In one frame of reference, right now, you are moving at 99% of the speed of light. In another frame of reference, right now, you are not moving. They are both equally valid.
Your use of the "inertial frame of reference" complicates the picture because it brings in acceleration/deceleration. But it doesn't change the fact that each perspective is equally valid.
In the case you suggest one person observes that you started at rest and then accelerated to "near light speed". However, don't forget, that there will be another frame of reference where an observer would observe that you started at "near light speed" and then decelerated to zero.
Even considering acceleration (and inertial frames) it is still equally valid to say you are, right now, moving at 99% of the speed of light-- and that you are moving at 0% of the speed of light. Right now, both of these are valid (in equally valid frames of reference).
While you are accelerating, you will experience the acceleration. However accelerating from rest, or decelerating from a fast speed to rest, are indistinguishable (since they are two ways of experiencing the same phenomenon from different points of view).
Once you stop accelerating, there are still multiple frames of equally valid frames of reference-- in one of them you are going 99% of the speed of light, and the other you are motionless.
And the longer they spend "coasting on cruise control" before they turn around and come back home, the farther into the future they will be catapulted.
Imagine an atomic explosion - The inner of which contains a 'near' vacuum -
Time here is virtually suspended - ….ignorant of all external processes - Billions of years can pass…..before that…...rejoins this realm…….To us…...mere moments have passed.
…...'Relatively'…...As we do... our universe.
Sorry Dale, is as clear as day to me.