2013-02-11, 07:37 PM
Jedward Wrote:Seems like you didn't...?
I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand, I even outlined it in my response. To be clear, my second post was aimed at dissuading people from choosing SLOW DOWN, it was not in support of speeding up even though that is my preference.
Why I did not choose time slowing:
- 2013 - 20 years old. At an average rate of slowing time by half over 20 years.
- 2033 - 60 years old. The body would have aged 40 years while only 20 years would have elapsed. Got wise, reduced use of power; 20 more years slowing at an average rate of a quarter.
- 2053 - 85 years old. Presumably dead sometime soon.
Result, you witness 40 more years of history, but have aged so much that you are unable to see any more. A life wasted eating just a tiny slice of this thing called life.

