I've searched around and I keep getting various answers, explanations, and examples for Time Dilation and The Lorentz Transformation, but it isn't what I'm looking for. I was watching "The Universe" last week and the episode dealt with The Speed of Light and it's properties. They had an example where a scientist was riding his bike, we'll call him the cyclist, in a circle around another scientist who is stationary. The track the cyclist was on was circular and for this example we'll say 1/4 of a mile, not that it matters. As theorized by Einstein, as the cyclist approaches the speed of light (.99c), time for him slows down and he ages must more slowly than the stationary scientist. When he stops, he is younger than the scientist who did not move. Now, many times throughout my life I've heard the expression, time slows down as you approach the speed of light, but now I question why? I've Googled and searched and sat and thought about it but the more and more I think about it the more and more I'm getting confused. It seems to me this is backwards, even though I know it's not, and because I know it's not, it's bothering me. The way I think about it is: Let's just say that the cyclist can actually watch the stationary scientist as he travels around him. Ignoring the fact that his view would be distorted because he's traveling so fast, everything around him would appear to be almost stationary. (I think about the scene in "Over the Hedge" when the squirrel or whatever drinks the energy drink, if anyone has seen this movie you know what I'm referring to). Am I right to assume this much? I'll continue: If the cyclist is moving that fast, everything around him appears to be almost stationary, this is what I imagine when I think about "time slowing down". If the cyclist were able to look at a clock that was being held up by the stationary scientist, it would take a REALLY long time for one second on that clock to pass, whereby if he were to look at his wristwatch, time would be moving along just as it normally does, right? This is my problem: If everything above is looked at from the point of the cyclist, if he spent 30 minutes cycling at .99c, watching everything around him barely move, when he slowed back down to 20km/h, wouldn't everything only be like 1 second ahead of where it was? Instead of the stationary scientist aging faster, it's the cyclist. This makes sense to me. The opposite, which is the accepted way of thought and a proven fact, does not make sense. Can someone break this particular experiment down and tell me why what seems like the obvious answer is wrong?