ronians1

WhatI I need is confirmation from experts that in terms of reality here on Earth (we are not talking relativity theory in this respect) time slows down as we speed up. I have been told by this by physicists elsewhere. I just need confirmation from members of this forum.

Of course you are, only it is so minimal that you don't notice it.

Thus we are back to slow motion again for a biological system. It seems to me that the only way to deal with counterintuitive issues is to keep them separate from reality and separate them by saying this is theory and this is reality. Intuition has taken thousands of years to evolve through natural selection and one just can't just cast it aside because of a theory formulated over just a lifetime, effective as it may be. To the layman, the only credible explanation for a twin coming back to Earth younger than is brother through having aged less is slow motion- anything else would represent the metaphysical.

I think I've got it now. Please correctme if I am wrong: In terms of actuality, if I travel at the near speed of light I would feel absolutely nothing is out of the ordinary. The state of being frozen in time never actually happens. One just appears frozen in time to observers from another frame of reference.

At last we are getting some consensus on the definition of the meaning of the word "slow motion" as used in this thread. Some agreement is being reached on the twin astronaught's perception of matters in the cabin of his spacecraft at nearly the speed of light and of his metabolism and indeed of his movement. I have someone who is entrenched in the idea that everything is and appears absolutely normal for the astronaught during the flight and that time dialation is never experienced by oneself in the same FOR but something only something percieved by third parties when frames of refernce are switched. However the common consensus seems to be that metabolism and indeed movement is restricted for the astronaught during this flight and that should he throw an object against the wall of the spacecraft during the flight, actuality dictates that the passage of the ball would be similar to that in a slowed-down movie. The common consensus vis-a-vis to thae astronaught's perception of things seems to be, rather then percieving reality the astronaught actually percieves that everything is normal even if he is travelling at the near speed of light and frozen in time. Although paralysed and probably dead, he still sees himself as functioning normally!

You are saying that there is no effect on the human body. Delta 1212 says: I have heard differing views about this. Is the human body physically affected by time dialation or not? If it is not then the effect is on only time itself. If the answer is yes then what happens when the speed is increased to near light speed and the astronaught is virtually fozen in time? Does everything appear normal to him then? This is a very important point for a lot of people. Thanks

There is a way to determine that the astronaught is the one who has experienced motion. The fact that he is x years younger when he returns to Earth. The difference in ages is proof of motion.

But how does this tie up with Biological systems? In the twin paradox the astronaught twin goes away and comes back years younger. This would present a huge problem for a biological system which metabolises according to its own biological time. Here we have an independant system wihch relies on moment to moment function. Surely one cannot eliminate a huge wadge of time out of this function without physical compensation and that physical compensation would be slow motion.

I see what you mean. Thanks. A point I am still confused about is whether the astronaught twin actually experienced slow motion during his journey at the near speed of light. If not how can one actually experience time dialation without its effect on the human body? Does this mean that the fact that one individual experiencing the effect of a slow-motion environment (spaceship FOR) in relation to another on Earth experiencing a normal environment does not fulfill the requirements required for proving the laws of physics are different in the two instances?

A universal frame of reference If not, you appear to have described time dilation as it is, which is consistent with the postulate. Muon decay and particle accelerator experiments are consistant with the postulate that the laws of physics do not do true in all frames of reference.

As we are using "the virtual speed of light as a backdrop", at such immense speed the different environmental conditions are irrelevent - all movement, gravitation etc around earth level can be ignored as they would be insignificant compared to the near speed of light If one was being pedantic one could insist that like was compared with like. But say we substituted a train on a smooth level surface on Earth where gravitation was the same, the clock readings would show the same discrepency except so minute that one would have to probably use a caesium clock. I believe time starts dialating on any movement whatsoever. By me.

I should imagine this happens when a significant chromosome mutation occurs which stops the species from interbreeding. Normal point mutations don't usually stop sub-species from interbreeding.

I have been told that: Relativity must be wrong, or Quantum Mechanics must be wrong, or perturbation theory is not the right tool to reconcile the two, or the space-time metric is not the field that should be quantized!'' Which of these would you lay your bet on?

The First Postulate of Special Relativity The first postulate of the theory of special relativity states: The laws of physics hold true for all frames of reference. This is the simplest of all relativistic concepts to grasp. The physical laws help us understand how and why our environment reacts the way it does. They also allow us to predict events and their outcomes. Next, measure the time it takes a pendulum to make 20 full swings from a starting height of 12 inches above its resting point. You should get the same results but you don't whether you are standing on the ground or riding on a spaceship at the near speed of light. Note that we are assuming that the spaceship is not accelerating, but travelling along at a constant velocity in space.. It is contended that the laws of physics do not hold true for all frames of reference, indeed in the spaceship the pendulum would take much longer to make the equivalent swings owing to time dialation at the near speed of light A second may be a second but that second would take longer to pass. It is contended that matters appear normal (and thus conform to relevitivity theory) only at insignificant Earthly speeds but it is at greater speeds aproaching that of the speed of light that actual dialation becomes apparent and thus the theory falsified.

Both scenarios are impossible as time travel is impossible. Differential aging would ensure the death of a biological system before it reaches the near speed of light - anything else would be conjecture in the realms of fantasy At 486,000mph everything would seem normal - you would have to go much faster before you would start feeling anything. You are making assumptions on a new concept with the old rules(relativity). This is a new concept with new rules, most of which have yet to be formulated. Remember what we are dealing with is actuality- what is happening in reality and not hypothetics. The astronaught twin comes back younger. This is a violation of biology and basic Earthly principles. The only way it can be explained is by using the vehicle of slowmotion Differential aging ensures that time travel is impossible. One must ask oneself what is" actually" happening. Which scenario represents reality?. Biological reality does not change with perspective.

It is by using the sleight of hand of FORs that makes time travel seem possible. If you need a frame of reference when none is preferred, then use the frame of reference of Earth and the spacecraft and they both come out the same.......slow motion. This is fact and reality

Just concentrate on the facts of the matter and forget perspectives which are unimportant in this instant. At the virtual speed of light the astronaught would be virtually dead and frozen in time and not in a position to notice anything else which would be equally be frozen in time. Look at the Hafele-keating experiment. This is not relevent I don't think so. I know a second on the spaceship would still be a second but each second would take longer to pass -hence slow motion(in this case frozen in time). The astronaught on the spaceship travelling at the near speed of light would be virtually frozen in time. Check this out with you physics teacher if you have one. This imples that time travel is impossible

Before I reply to the others let's get this straight: If I got into a spaceship and circumnavigated the Earth indefinitely at the near speed of light, the hands of the spaceship clock would run slow(Hafele-Keating experiment but quicker). Would I or would I not be virtually frozen in time? If not why not? The hands of the clock on the wall of the spaceship would be. Why shouldn't my hands be frozen in time? Are you saying thet biological systems "are not" affected by time dialation?

Are you then saying biological systems function to a point of view in actuality?

There's a contradiction here. You say : Time runs slower in a moving frame- in other words - slower when moving = slow motion You say: For the moving frame, less time passes - in other words- slower when moving = slow motion You say: But as measured in the moving frame, time is running normally: In the moving frame a second may still take a second but each second takes longer to pass like a light clock whose beam has to travel further. If each second takes longer to pass in the moving frame slow motion will ensue in that moving frame. Things look normal at insignificant speeds.

Biological time can't be relative. One can't treat biological systems as if they were inanimate objects surely? Biological systems would have to function in slow motion if clocks tick slower. There is no ther way around for biology. Metabolism is a straight arrow which can only ensure the survival of an organism by working between certain margins. Biology cant just function to a point of view. For a biological system to survive something else must give and that something could be the FOR or Time itself. Biological time is not relative.

A fundamental postulate of relatvity is that the laws of physics are the same in all rest frames. This is why text books state that everything is normal in all rest frames - if not relativity is falsified. Time dialation is real for a body in motion as evidenced by the Hafel-keating experiment. Time dialation in the rest frame of the spaceship travelling at the near speed of light results in the spaceship clock actually running slow and biological systems actually running in slow motion. If the spaceship was not travelling at the near speed of light but at say only at mach 1, everything on board would appear normal to the naked eye but in actuality be running very slightly slower than normal. All experiments concrning this matter have been performed at insignificant speeds compared to that of light. As a consequence the laws of physics appear the same in all rest frames. It would only be when travelling at extreme speeds approaching to that of light that the fact that the laws of physics are not the same in all rest frames becomes apparent. Time and matter actually run slow in the FOR of the spaceship travelling at a near light speed when time and matter actually run normally in the FOR of Earth.

The absence of the reconciliation of Quantum Theory with the Theory of Relativity I feel warrants attempts at falsification from all and sundry irrespective.

And why not? Physics is incomplete. Quantum Mechanics cannot be reconciled with Relativity. The equation bringing together the world of the very small with the real world results in infinity or nonsense. Somethings is wrong with one or more of the areas of physics I think its healthy to challenge anything one finds unconvincing. .

Can we stay as simple as possible and omit acceleration? How do you explain to laymen onlookers how one twin aged less than the other other than that he spent his time in space in slow motion? How do you explain to the onlooker the diffrerence in time shown by the two clocks other than that time slowed down thus forcing the astronaught to go into slow motion (if thats possible). How does a biological system survive slow motion? How does relativity theory deal with these very real issues?