[thedoc (OP)]

Dr Francois Mellett asked the Naked Scientists:
   Biological decay will most likely explain the time factor better than the concept of growth. Given that nutrients are present, the right atmospheric conditions, the right atmosphere, including moisture and temperature, decay will continue constantly irrespective of the method of expressing time or space. Although it is common to refer to a rate of decay, decay is inevitable irrespective of the factor time. I am amazed that this fact is ignored in the attempts to explain how time will elaps slower for the near-the-spead-of-light traveller vs the non-traveller: decay will set in at the same rate under the given conditions, irrespective of whether our current measurement of time ran faster for one and slower for the other. Back-to-the-future-only is correct, however, the traveller will return in the same state of decay as the non-traveller. It is great that physists explore the thought, but also incorporate the biology.
What do you think?