ronians1

Does not relativity predict that everything should be and appear normal in the FOR of the spacecraft during near-light speed and if it isn't then relativity would be falsified? In reality how did he spend his time in space? If you say he spent his time normally, how would you describe normally ?

Lets say we witness the twin paradox in real life without any knowledge of relativity. On Earth we see the astronaught twin climb out of his spacecraft considerably younger than his brother and both the clock on the ground and the one in the spaceship show different times. With no knowledge of relativity at all - how does one explain what has happened to a group of laymen onlookers? The only explanation I can think of is that (1) the astronaught has spent his time in space in slow motion (2) the difference in clock times is due to time and reality slowing down on the spaceship. This is fact and reality surely - something that overrides everything else for the layman! Any other answer would seem like magic to them. Once this fact is established then one can go into the realms of relativity theory Will anyone agree that from a FOR from the spaceship (1) The astronaught has spent his time in space in slow motion and (2) the difference in clock times is due to time and reality slowing down on the spaceship? Human brains have been educated to accept certain things without question and to think a certain way- in the box so to speak. What is needed is a willingness to think out of the box.

Just suppose that the TOR was falsified in the way discussed. What would the implications be and how would it affect (if at all) the future of physics.?

Say one was going around a distant star and back to Earth in a spaceship. The clock in the spaceship once back on Earth has run say 12 hours slow to the one on the ground, thus the hands on the clock in the ship surely would have moved in slow motion compared to those on the ground just as human hands (and other parts) would have moved in slow motion irrespective of not being able to tell if one was moving or not. I know that onboard the spaceship in flight a second would still be a second but because of dialation that second would take longer to pass. So at the near speed of light the astronaught would be vitrually frozen (thanks zapatos) in time. Besides one could use the "ether" as one's FOR or perhaps there would be no preferential FOR. Differential aging would ensure that cause and effect was not violated and that time travel could not occur. In fact time travel would be impossible.

From the perspective an observer at rest on Earth or theoretical observer at rest on any near- obbject in space which, although may be moving, whose movement would be insignificant in relation to the near-speed of light.r

Every trip we make we experience slow motion only the speeds we attain in life are so insignificant that it is not noticeable. However at near-light speeds the slow motion experienced is literally "virtually frozen in time". Why is it important in relativity that, aboard the craft during the journey, whilst travelling at the near speed of light everything has to appear normal to the astronaught?

Lets say we witness the twin paradox in real life without any knowledge of relativity. On Earth we see the astronaught twin climb out of his spacecraft considerably younger than his brother and both the clock on the ground and the one in the spaceship show different times. With no knowledge of relativity at all - how does one explain what has happened to a group of laymen onlookers? The only explanation I can think of is that (1) the astronaught has spent his time in space in slow motion (2) the difference in clock times is due to time and reality slowing down on the spaceship. This fact and reality surely - something that overrides everything else.!

If the astronaught was travelling at the near speed of light(when everything comes to almost a standstill in the spaceship) how can he think time was moving normally? Can biological systems even survive the near speed of light?

From an Earth frame of reference, does this mean that relativistic speed time travel has to be spent in slow motion? Is that possible? Even if it were possible, wouldn't the time spent in slow motion cancel out the gain in time of the journey? Wouldn't this suggest that significant time travel is impossible?

If the spaceship example involved twins, in order for one twin to end up younger than the twin on the ground the astronaught twin would have had to have spent his time in space in "slow motion" to account for difference in time between the clocks.

Lets say that there are two clocks , one on the ground and one on the spaceship and that they were both synchronised before takeoff and that after the flight at the near speed of light the clock showed that it had lost x hours because time had slowed down; where have the lost hours gone? In order to balance books if one subtracts something it has to be added somewhere else.

Does the time traveller move in slow motion as he approaches the near-speed of light?