>>12400215>Moving at the speed of light isn't literally instant.it's not instant for us, but it is for the light. speed of light is the absolute limit so in the same way "instant" is an infinitely small measure of time, "speed of light" is an infinitely large measure of moving through space.
>there is necessarily a sequence from first person perspectivesure, and you will start perceiving it as you start slowing down from the speed of light. At the speed of light though, the sequence is essentially "frozen".
how about this way to think about it: a big stationary object gets bombarded by light and other stuff constantly thus it experiences events, order of events and thus the flow of time.
accelerating to non-relativistic speeds doesn't affect this perception much because the light still hits you from all sides, as it is still way faster.
at or near the speed of light the effect shifts dramatically, as nearly all the stuff that carries information and provides the way to order the events can no longer reach you unless you are directly approaching it.
travelling through vacuum as a particle at light speed means zero events until you hit another particle, slow down for the duration of the interaction, and that would act as a "tick" on the event line. no matter how far the "ticks" are apart from our perspective, for the photon there's literally nothing in between the "ticks" so they might as well have happened right after.
These "ticks" would act as units of time for the photon, but an ideal light speed particle moving through vacuum and not interacting with anything would not experience time.
