[Qwinn]

So, just curious, how do you explain the discrepancies that have been mentioned, the ones I most agree with being that time should slow down, not speed up? As for the motion being circular "cancelling itself out", I'm not sure that's necessarily accurate... by that logic, the famous anecdote of orbitting the planet a few times near the speed of light to produce the time effect should cancel itself out too. Besides, if it could "cancel itself out", that would imply that you could use the time shift to both speed up and slow down time, a positive and a negative... and that doesn't jibe with my understanding either.

Qwinn

[RightWhale]

the famous anecdote of orbitting the planet a few times near the speed of light to produce the time effect should cancel itself out too

The key is that there is a linear [tangential] acceleration to get going in the first place. An ordinary satellite experiences this since it is going fast enough to produce a measurable effect. The radial acceleration the speed-of-light satellite would need would cancel itself out every orbit for no net effect. It is the speed that does this. If the speed is 99% the speed of light, the effect would be very strong due to the speed alone.

[Godfollow]

Ah yes... good questions all... and I'd say you are right about time slowing down instead of speeding up. Maybe the writer intended to say loses 4 seconds instead of gaining four seconds... kind of messes up the idea of going back in time. And I don't actually think that by spinning in a circle the size of a room that you would have an effect on time, even for the timepiece itself.

And it would seem that the method described would not have an affect on time as experienced by all but only have an affect on the object or person experiencing the travels of speeds greater than what we normally experience... and I have had about three glasses of wine since I first read this article, so you'll excuse me I sure, if I'm not making much scenes...