[Ingvar]

Originally Posted by SinJin

I'm still having trouble understanding, and was hoping someone might clarify with possibly a non math-heavy explanation. [...]why is it that the rate of change we experience slows down the faster we approach the speed of light?

The velocity of light is relative to the observer and his velocity. Because an observer's light is the invariant frequency-spectrum of the radiation that his eyes react on as light.

As measurements demonstrate, the velocity of light from a source, as a star, is constant in the space at rest. But it is relative to an observer's velocity, because his eyes light's frequency-spectrum is invariant.
Therefore the observer's speed v is added (+ or -) to the light-speed c.

Light is not a physical phenomenon: Light is a physiological reaction on the eye's retina that the brain interprets as light and colours, depending on the frequencies. Consequently, the frequencies change with the observer's velocity relative to the radiation's source.

The present Pointcare-Lorentz theory that Einstein plagiarized to theoreticize about relativistic velocities is based on an asymptotic transformation equation. It was a thought-experiment about what would happens near the light-speed's limit and a help hypothesis that Einstein used to speculate and manipulate his reviewing friends and colleagues to get rid of the aether and the problematic results from the anomalistic Michelson-Morley experiment that was given a false authority, because it wasn't the experiment that got the Nobel-price: it was the invention of the instrument.

The observer's velocity added to the radiation's c changes according to this formula: f=(c+-v)/l where f is the observers invariant frequency spectrum and v his velocity, and l (lambda) is the velocity-depending variable wavelength.

And as the light-spectrum of the observer in rest (relative to the space) is about 3800-7600 Angstrom, and the frequency-spectrum derived from this is 7.895x10^16Hz to 3.947x10^16Hz.

If the observer moves at 1 % of c towards the radiation-source the relative radiation velocity is 303 000 km/s.

The observer's light has then changed the wave-spectrum from 3800-7600 Angstrom to 3838-7677 Angstrom.

And vice versa in the other direction from the light-source.

The same logical formula is applicable for the light-source in motion.

If a light-source (a galaxy) moves away at 1 % of c it wave-spectrum is elongated 1 % relative the observer. And vice versa.

Originally Posted by SinJin

The only way I personal can imagine […] photons in a light beam […]. Is there any simple explanation for why time dialation occures that involves the idea that time is merely the passing of events, i.e. the rate of change?

The photon is Einstein's vision of Planck's misinterpretation of the measurements of the heat-radiation's fractional difference between the radiated wave-units and/or the radiation's wave-displacement with the covered distance.

The analyses of the measurements have demonstrated that there was a fractional constant increase of the wave-lenghts: from one wave-unit to the next; or this fractional constant multiplied with whichever amount of wave-units length or covered distance.

Also Hubble discovered the same wave-displacement phenomenon from his analysis of the galaxies' redshifted spectral lines but he misinterpreted it as Doppler-velocity and the galaxies' recession and expansion of the universe.

Hubble has written:
"If the recession factor is dropped, if redshift are not primarily velocity shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is [then] no evidence of expansion, and no restriction of time-scale, no trecce of spatial curvature and no limitations of spacial dimension."

So photons are just illusions, and length contraction and time dilation are fantasy, and its bizarre consequences are bad and sad science fictions.

The fractional displacement of 6.6x10^34 implies that the radiation (a wave-unit independent of its length) is displaced 1 Angstrom per 16 million light-year (1 Angstrom is 1/10 000 000 000 m).

Read Max Planck's Nobel-lecture at:
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laure...ck-lecture.html
where he wrote that he didn't know how to interpret the measurements.

Planck has written:
"Either the quantum of action was a fictionally quantity, then the whole deduction of the radiation law was in the main illusory and represented nothing more than an empty non-significant play of formula ..."

Ingvar Astrand, Sweden
http://www.theuniphysics.info