Einstein and biology don't mix...

Einstein says that the faster you travel through space, the slower you travel through time. See the Twin Paradox.
The more we learn about the human body, the more wrong Einstein seems to be.
How do humans age? Through the loss of telomeres. Telomeres are long strands of repeating DNA that shorten up when a cell divides. When the telomeres get too short, the cell can’t divide and we’re in trouble.
About 75 cell divisions and you’re 6-feet under. A main reason people live longer than others is that they have longer telomeres, a biological lottery.
Cataracts are a common symptom of aging. The Astronauts who travelled to the Moon developed cataracts about 10 times that of ordinary people and about 7 times as much as Astronauts who did not travel space at the same speeds and distance.
What’s in cosmic rays? Iron-Nuclei radiation.
This damages telomeres- science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006 … -58_06.pdf

The end result seems to show that the faster and longer humans travel in space, the shorter they will live. This is the opposite of Einstein’s assertion.
I’m not attacking special relativity here, just the Twin Paradox; which seems to be wrong.

That sounds logical since humans lose bone mass due to the lack of gravity. It made sense on the scifi series Star Trek Enterprise when faster than light speed was achieved the nacelles would cause a bubble around the ship itself suspending it in normal state for humans, while the bubble would fold space in a warp fashion. The crew aboard then wouldn’t suffer from the affects of traveling through space.l

No one knows exactly how we age. Some people think it’s ‘free radicals’ released from our mitochondria.

The reason the Twin Paradox is ‘wrong’ for you is because travelling in space is plain unhealthy. Just put one of the twins on a .99c scooter on Earth instead. Without space radiation and a lack of the gravitational field our bodies are designed for one will age slower than the other.

It’s a proportionality. They both experience time at the ‘normal’ rate for them. It’s just that one goes through 70 years and the other goes through a few months or whatever.

We know much more about aging than we do about the Big Bang…:wink:

Telomeres are well understood and they’ve done some interesting astronaut/aging studies.

I’m not saying anything other than it looks like there’s a good chance that space travel would age humans at a faster rate. We’ll find out someday…

Yeah…no big surprise. It’s inherently unhealthy.

By the way, the astronauts who went to the moon didn’t even spend all that much time in space. The reason they developed cataracts is probably because the protection wasn’t as good as it is now. Other modern astronauts have experienced more time dilation than they have.

Einstein says that ANYTHING that travels faster through space travels slower through time. Including a hypothetical human.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

But the human has to be hypothetical. To keep a twin in a jet travelling at high speeds for their entire life would probably pose too much of a threat to their health to show a one or two day difference in their life span compared with their twin if measurable at all.

Getting a human up to 50% of the speed of light would probably kill them from acceleration (again, even if hypothetically possible).

So arguing that a human would suffer a shorter life span if accelerated to amzing speeds simply misses the point. The Twin Paradox requires that the twin being accelerated be exactly the same as the other twin in every other way except for travelling at the high speed. No radiation, no acceleration, etc.

And even if you did die, you would still be travelling slower through time compared to the other twin. The slower-through-time part is the point, not the impossibility of actually getting a twin into that situation.

I think this is the straw-man fallacy:
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Well, it’s all up in the air. The Telomere’s should feel the radiation at a slower rate, yet that doesn’t seem to be the case. The radiation will screw with the telomere’s no matter what. The telomere’s should do better at higher speeds, according to Einstein. I’m just saying biology says otherwise. The Twin Paradox is senseless.

You’re drastically overestimating the effects of time dilation…we’re only talking about 5.0 x 10^-4 percent of the speed of light for the Apollo astronauts’ trip to the moon.

Imagine someone running continuously for hours. According to Einstein, time passes slower for this person compared to his stationary twin. By how much? I don’t know but it may be something like 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 second. So this running person becomes younger than his twin by that tiny amount of time. That’s all Einstein is saying. If this running person had a heart attack and died, that doesn’t in the least affect the fact that he was younger than his twin when he died. That running can make your life shorter by giving you a heart attack is not evidence against the “Twin Paradox”.

But the ‘time’ of the Telomeres should also be affected. They should slow down like everything else. The running analogy isn’t apples to apples. The man is running, stressing himself.
The telomere is not an analogy, it’s real.
This seems to be another example of an equation not truly having a natural counterpart.
It’s all scf-fi.

This is all very unscientific. To test einsteins theory this way both twins should be put in the same enviroment apart from the variable in which we are concerned with. So all we do is put our twin who’s travelling thrrough space in a ‘cosmic ray proof spaceship’. Then we would find that einstein was right the telomeres will run last longer.

This is just a very bad pseudo-science attempt to ‘disprove’ a well understood piece of physics.

I agree that we don’t know, but it seems to be this way. Even NASA is questioning the paradox.
The cosmic rays are part of the quanta that is supposed to be affected by high-speed travel. If the cosmic ray-influence is not affected, what else isn’t? It’s possible that nothing is affected, who knows.

There’s a chance the theory is merely a mathematical contrivance and not ‘real’.

The astronauts are not experiencing any noticeable time-dilation though. Are you taking about the astronauts or the cosmic rays?

No, I said we do understand the physics! I dunno what your on about now nasa has no reason to question time dilation on these grounds it hasn’t but astronauts on a a spaceship traveling at relativistic speeds. And anyhow this ain’t gonna effect the rate at which they get hit by cosmic rays.

Relativity is either correct or wrong theres no ‘merely a mathematical contrivance’ about it. The theory states what it states. If we find surcumstances where it does not apply then we have to find a new theory. This is exactly what the twin paradox does; it shows that special relativity doesn’t apply so we have to use general relativity. This is fine because that is why it is ‘special’; because it only applys in non-accelerting frames.
[/quote]

That’s right, the telomeres slow down like everything else, but at a ridiculously tiny amount, like I mentioned. The runner’s telomeres slowed by, say, 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 second. The astronaut’s slowed more, but still at an insignifcant amount, say, 0.00000000001 second. The speed of current spaceships is nowhere near the speed at which time dilation is noticeable on the human scale.

The running man stressing himself is analogous to the astronaut stressing himself. Your original post supplied the type of stress that an astronaut has to face: radiation. The point is that such stress has an infinitely larger impact than the slowed ageing of the telomeres by a split second, whether you’re running or in a spaceship.

What does “traveling through space” mean? Someone living his whole life in Anchorage travels around the axis of Earth at twice the speed of someone who lives her whole life in Ecuador. But they travel around the Sun at the same speed. Is one traveling through space faster than the other?

Actually, that’s backwards. They both have the same angular velocity. Velocity = angular velocity * radius. Because the person in Ecuador has a larger radius, his velocity will be higher.

There’s no real way of knowing which person is travelling through space faster. It doesn’t make a huge difference, though; any differences imparted by the angular velocity of the earth are drowned out by the velocity around the sun, which is travelling around the galaxy, which is hurtling through the universe…

It’s a good thing we have reference frames :smiley:

Oops. Of course, the person in Ecuador is moving faster. That was pretty dumb of me, and I actually know better.

And there is no way of knowing which person is traveling through space faster.

When can we know, then?

Its relativity; only the relative speeds of the people matter. Theres no meaning to which person is travelling faster ‘through space’. This is what einstein showed us. Space and time are relative concepts.

Speed relative only to each other, or to the speed of the Earth, the Solar System, and the Galaxy too?

Anyway, that’s why I asked what “traveling through space” means. You’re saying that this is a meaningless concept - traveling through space? Or that the speed with which a body is traveling trhough space cannot be determined?