It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Esoterica
I will say it again Time is relative. This has been theorized and proven. If you two can't comprehend what relativity means, that's not your fault. But apparently neither of you have even tried to understand it.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
My argument is that a living beings lifespan is not necessarily relative. Personally, the fact that clocks slow down relative to speed does not convince me that a man's life would be longer because he is moving faster.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You will get no argument from me that time is relative. My argument is that a living being's lifespan is not necessarily relative. Personally, the fact that clocks slow down relative to speed does not convince me that a man's life would be longer because he is moving faster.
It has been shown that cesium atoms in an atomic clock oscillate more slowly while moving faster than cesium atoms in an atomic clock that is earth-bound and stationary. It has been shown that subatomic particles decay more slowly at speeds approaching "c," but again no one, to my knowledge has shown that the human lifespan is affected one way or another by velocity.
[edit on 2005/11/11 by GradyPhilpott]