Anyone care to explain it more thoroughly than this article where I read about it?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070214220824.htm

It provides no real explanation.

The only thing I could think of is that our measurement of time is based on an orbit with a relation between the earth and sun. However an object not traveling this orbit would be subject to different ratios of time. Even if the moving object made orbit with relation to earth and sun at the speed of light, why would the stationary object age lesser if both experienced the same duration of orbit?

This post was edited by Lizar50 on Feb 21 2009 10:12pm

Time slows down in a reference frame moving fast past another reference frame. Doesn't take a genius. Well Einstein predicted it before any experimental evidence so he sure is a genius.

Sounds nice and dandy but your simple explanation lacks to define a reference frame and if they are equal distance from the sun. Because if your moving away from the sun, light has to reach that "reference frame" and would take more time to do so since your in motion traveling away from the other reference frame and the sun. BUt if both reference frames are equal distance, light travels the same and so time wouldn't speed up or slow down no matter how fast you were going.. that's how I see it.

This post was edited by Lizar50 on Feb 22 2009 11:16am

not really. if two photons hit head on you would expect them to be travelling double the speed of light toward each other, yet it is still only the speed of light -you should read "elegant universe" by bryan greene, it explains this in grea detail and is easy to understand. also this arcticle is outdated:

"Kak's solution assumes that the universe has the same general properties no matter where one might be within it." -quoted from arcticle.

this months "astronomy" mag has arcticle about inconsistencies in space in regard yo our space craft not being where they should be (losing distance farther from the sun). the arcticle spoke about this phenomena and others claiming they might have to start rewriting newtonian physics again. in other words, according to the data collected once a craft gets farther from the sun it loses speed. where is einstein when we need him!

This post was edited by juliusjuice on Feb 22 2009 02:13pm

A craft moving away from the sun that loses speed makes sense, I was kind of saying this no? Time is related to the orbit and the sun. When an object travels away from the sun and past the earth, then its orbit from the sun becomes greater and greater, making light travel further to contact the object. Time slows down in this sense, but only in relation to our star and earth. If a twin travels away from the sun it ages slower, but if it returns toward the sun wouldnt it age quicker?

no, its not the direction the twin travels in regard to the sun, its the speed it travels. as you travel at greater speeds yout time elapsed slows down. so your clock on board says 5 years but has been 10 on earth, like in planet of the apes.

yeah, what he said^^^

its simple really, everyone else has it wrong so far, even Einstein did. I am the first to be right.
Time is the same wherever you go. it is happening at the same rate, only the perception of it changes because of the cycle from which you were brought.
ex: if you are a creature of a larger planet your life is longer and a smaller planet?shorter life... you get this?
there is no actual distortion of time in space due to its bending under the force of the central object
to conclude this i also believe that all time, from beggining to end is happening all at once, or in one moment. different timescales can be experienced though.
you can experience this time to be infinitely long if you are on an object that is spinning fast enough.
at the edge of the universe, one would observe the earth to be spinning at, lets say 100000000000000000 times per second.

faster you go, slower times around u moves