Special Relativity. Lifetime.

[John 6IX Breezy]

@Breezy

The relation is precisely this: if f is the frequency in the rest frame of the system, then when it has relative velocity v to you, you observe the frequency  

f(moving) = f * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

This does not include doppler effects, just the way time runs.

Assuming I understood, which is questionable, you are just treating frequency as if it were any other moving object, correct? I don't think thats the type of relationship I'm asking about.

All three variables, f, v, and c, have time embedded in them as if time were a separate entity. In fact, time appears to be an ingredient in their composition, as opposed to an abstraction derived from them. I don't exactly know what I'm asking, or how to phrase it. Its just that coming from the cognitive sciences, relativity seems to me as if it were the psychology of physics, rather than physics itself. Terms such as observer, frames of reference, perception are psychological terms which are only possible if there is a subject with a mind that can experience movement, velocity, etc.

If that's the case, then what happens to these equations when time is treated as a complete psychological abstraction derived from the perception of motion and change? Because it seems to me, and I could be wrong, that physicists treat time as if it were an actual entity in which things occur, which is the reverse of how psychologists view it (I don't know much about the composition of spacetime, however, or if its different from time by itself).

Both fields tend to look down on each other. Physicists view psychology as barely a science, and psychologists view physics as low on the totem pole of complexity. So I doubt theres been much crosstalk between the two fields, and I have often wondered what happens if they collaborated more.