asprung

Then why should the spaceman age slower?

WIKIPEDIA seems to be a discussion rather than a definition.

Does not the spaceman experence his clock slowing by his slower ageing?

Some say that the spaceman will actually undergo length contraction and distortion. Some say that such length contraction and distortion will only appear in different reference planes. Is the fact that clock slowing has been measured as actually occurring some indication that what happens to the spaceman is real and that he should feel it. If the clock slowing will affect his ageing why should not the length contraction affect him physically?

There seems little doubt that length contraction would actually occur within the spaceman’s ship and reference frame just as would a slowing of his clock. As the contraction would occur in only one direction the actual size would make no difference as there would be distortion which I would think could injure or kill.

We have not tried to define time itself, but have only tried to classify it.

I still come back to the point that the space man has but one body and if that contracts it could kill him. You seem to be saying that he in effect has two bodies and that since only the one in the other reference plane contracts he wont notice it.

If the spaceman is traveling at .9C I am told there should be substantial length contraction which is physical and not illusory. This could kill him. He may feel at rest inside his space ship. How would this change things? Could he be dead with respect to certain reference frames and alive and well with respect to others?

The spaceman has only one body and it either shrinks or does not. If it shrinks he may have problems.

Are you saying that he realy doesnt shrink in length,it just appears so to others? It seems to me a body has a certain raito of length to width and it either changers or doesnt.

I think we need a better definition of time to start with.

I was refering to a single event viewed from diffrent refrence planes. Simultaneous= same time. No if time refers to clock time. Yes time refers to universal time. " The word means exactly what I say it means,nothing more,nothing less" {Mad Hatter"

According to SR a body moving through space contracts in the direction of the velocity. Approaching the speed this can be substantial. It is questioned what damage this might do to a spaceman? His brain and other organs are not designed to function in a distorted condition nor at an increased density.

I see all energy and matter as only being present "now".

Lets not use the problem word. Lets just stick to " events occur in the present or now in all refrence planes".

We get into definitions. Events occur in the present or "now" in all refrence planes.

If the universe only exists "now" everything in it must experence the same "now".

I propose that events are simultaneous in all referense planes - "now" -only the clocks may run at diffrent rates. If not how could a party in any refrence plane come together with a party from any other refrence plane?

INow's interpertation is what I was getting at. Thanks. And this is so from the start of the Big Bang. And who knows from before.

The concept of the present or “now’ proceeding uniformly throughout the universe would appear valid and could constitute universal or absolute time depending on definition. Measuring it would appear to be a very complicated matter.

I view the difference of time in different time frames to be caused by different clock rates. The compression of length by velocity should cause an increase in density or molecular concentration which could cause a slowing of any “clock”.

Without time everything would be frozen and there could be no motion.

I was proposing that the slowing would effect any type of clock including those you mention.

Motion cannot take place without time. It should thus be clear that the big bang and the evolution of the universe could not have taken place without time. Time must thus be coinsided as an essential element of the universe.

Time has traditionally been expressed in terms of units read out by instruments used to measure it – seconds, minutes etc. Its underlying nature has appeared to escape a good definition. Time as I see it is the force that maintains the present i.e. “now”. I propose that it marches on or progresses at a uniform rate from the big bang constituting a universal time and ageing of the universe. This universal time cannot be read by clocks which may run at different rates in different time frames. The length of a body decreases in the direction of its velocity irrespective of its composition and it may be that the rate of clock decreases in the same manner irrespective of its construction. The different reading of clocks in different time frames may be caused by such difference in the clock rate as opposed to a difference in what is being measured.

I would welcome suggestions as to how this universal time might be measured.. It may be that it has some relationship to the speed of light. It must be fast enough so that light cannot run ahead into the future or may put a brake on lights’ speed for the same reason.

The presence of universal time would appear to be evidenced by parties in different time frames being able to view an event as it occurs though their clocks read vastly different times and by their being able to come together in the same present.

I thank you for all the imput and citations. Somehow I still like my useless theory.

I am sorry that the concept is useless in understanding the universe.

The past is but history, the future is yet to come,so all that is left is "now".