General Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orion
  • 2,283 comments
  • 107,717 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alpha Centauri is a star. Well, two stars. So you'd die quite quickly.


You'd only age at a different rate if you travelled at a different rate. If twin A stayed on Earth, but twin B was zoomed around the cosmos at the speed of light for 70 years, 2 months and 3 days, he'd return as a baby just in time to see his twin die.
 
So theoretically its possibly to reverse the aging process, and live forever?
 
You could only live forever by travelling at the speed of light. And then you'd only live forever from the point of view of an external observer. From your point of view, no time would pass.
 
Famine
Alpha Centauri is a star. Well, two stars. So you'd die quite quickly.
Click to expand...
:ouch:


Famine
You'd only age at a different rate if you travelled at a different rate. If twin A stayed on Earth, but twin B was zoomed around the cosmos at the speed of light for 70 years, 2 months and 3 days, he'd return as a baby just in time to see his twin die.
Click to expand...
I know all that, but that's not what I mean. It's difficult to explain in a foreing language. It was poorly explained. Don't take the journey into account. Twin A is 50 y.o. and twin B is on the closest planet (beyond our solarsystem) which can support human life and so on... is also 50 y.o. like his/her twin on earth. Will they die at the exact moment? Or he/she travells at the same rate, would he/she die at the same moment? The same moment (in our space time continuum) is important here, not the actual age.

And don't start with (on) how it is impossible to get there without getting younger if you travel as fast a the speed of light. ;)
 
Famine
You could only live forever by travelling at the speed of light. And then you'd only live forever from the point of view of an external observer. From your point of view, no time would pass.
Click to expand...

No time would pass from when you decided to zoom around the universe, but you'd get younger, and the time would appear to have not changed, but you could still count your years wherever you are when you stopped and theoretically live to a thousand, no?

I hope that makes sense.
 
kikie
I know all that, but that's not what I mean.
Click to expand...
I think Famine well understood what you meant – his answer is, summarily, No, they would age the same, unless one travelled at large speeds. The twins paradox is a hypothetical case referring to special relativity, but if you have two stationary objects, special relatively isn’t particularly important or relevant.
 
kikie - Sage has it covered. There's no way to change the rate of aging if you don't travel at high speed. Being on a different planet - apart from the differing environments and inbound solar radiation (which we're ignoring) - would have no effect.

Loon
No time would pass from when you decided to zoom around the universe, but you'd get younger, and the time would appear to have not changed, but you could still count your years wherever you are when you stopped and theoretically live to a thousand, no?

I hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't get younger, no.
 
Sage
I think Famine well understood what you meant – his answer is, summarily, No, they would age the same, unless one travelled at large speeds.
Click to expand...
I reread Famine's post and yes the answer is there. I read it too fast. That's always been my problem. Jump from A to Z without taking in account all the data (or things) in between. That's what I did in school, and I made it hard on myself but I was still the best off my class :sly:

They would die at the same moment if they travelled at the same speed and age at the same rate.

I never heard of the twin paradox. I'm always stuck with questions like that and other ofcourse. I like to think about these question all the time.

It thougth so that they would die at the same moment, just wanted to be sure.
 
You do realize that it's Monday and my brain doesn't start to comprehend these kinds of things until sometime around Wednesday afternoon, right?
 
An alternative interpretation might be this:

If one twin lived on the moon in an atmospheric bubble, a moonbase, and one on the Earth, then would they live the same length of time, if the lived the same lives?

I think the twin on the moon might grow taller, live longer due to the lower gravity experienced on the moon. But then, they might not, to do the same things, they would expend less energy and hence require less food and possibly be less fit. I'm sure there are NASA studies about this!

Being on (or rather near) Alpha Centauri might affect us in other ways. Who knows what Sol's radiation does to us really, and what the EM emitted from Alpha Centauri to its nearly planets, through their atmospheres might be.

Crikey, what about the sun on the moon! Would be get instant tans? Might we die of skin cancer!?

Good question!
 
Loon
Then how did the twin in the earlier example come back as a baby to see his twin die?
Click to expand...

I used kikie's example time of 70 years, 2 months and 3 days. So they were separated at birth. One grew up on Earth, one zoomed around the universe at the speed of light. When the zooming one returned he was still a baby - no time had passed for him - but the other twin living a normal life on Earth had aged normally.
 
MINICOOPER120
He left as a baby?
Click to expand...

Hey thats it! He never aged at all, because in the example he was supposed to die at 70 years 3 months and 2 days so when he returns to earth in that time he hasn't aged at all, because he apparently started zooming around the cosmos right after he was born.

Tree'd.

I get it now, I don't know why I was so confused.:dunce:
 
If you could travel faster than time light, it is possible to be at two different place at the same moment.

I read about it years ago when I was about 14.


Now I'm going to bed! Good night everybody.
 
kikie
If you could travel faster than time, it is possible to be at two different place at the same moment.

I read about it years ago when I was about 14.


Now I'm going to bed! Good night everybody.
Click to expand...

I think that would be a different dimension rather than traveling faster than time.

You could also say that if someone went to another planet many many light years away it would be possible to see his grandparents as a baby, but thats an entirely different concept.
 
Diablo'
You could also say that if someone went to another planet many many light years away it would be possible to see his grandparents as a baby, but thats an entirely different concept.
Click to expand...

...well assuming he travelled FASTER than the speed of light and had an ultra high magnification high resolution telescope capable of distinguishing a human sized object from 70+ light years away packed in his luggage...
 
Travel faster than the speed of light??? Richard Branson, your next business venture awaits! :dopey:
 
kikie
If you could travel faster than time light, it is possible to be at two different place at the same moment.

I read about it years ago when I was about 14.


Now I'm going to bed! Good night everybody.
Click to expand...
I meant faster than the speed of light. I was barely awake when I wrote the previous posts last night.

If something travels faster than the speed of light it also becomes invisible.


EDIT: another question :sly:

Can an invisible person see?

Let's asume it is possible to become invisible like in that movie Hollow Man.




:)
 
kikie
If something travels faster than the speed of light it also becomes invisible.
Click to expand...
It's a theory no one has been able to provide concrete support (not necessarily evidence) for. When an object approaches the speed of light, they will appear diagonally skewed (to someone remaining relatively still to them) and there will be an orange/red banding/tapering at one side of the object or person. No knows for sure whether you'd accomplish invisibility at full light speed, but the general consensus is that you will be unbound from time, and maybe space as well (possibly associated with the mass = 0 theory). So it's assumed you may become impervious to light radiation if you travel at light speed away from a light source.

I'm not one who's interested in traveling at the speed of light. What jogs my mind is how to exit light speed if time stops; I could literally be the end of the universe instantly.
 
kikie
Can an invisible person see?
Click to expand...

I can't see something like you described in the Hollow Man even possible in the first place, but:

It is possible to make an object appear invisible by re-routing all the light in the exact same direction it first it the object, as was done a while ago by researchers. However, in this case, it is impossible to see, since near-100% of the light just passes around you, so you are surrounded by total darkness.
 
Speed of light has been broken


Can an invisible man see?

My answer:

If the refractive index of a person is the same from that of his/her surroundings, then he/she is invisible. Light rays won’t change direction, and light won’t reflect from his/her body.
Light passes straight through this person.

The lens of an eye can’t focus the light onto the retina, which then can’t convert light enery into electrical impulses. If there are no electrical impulses carried to the brain, the invisible person can’t see. So, I think an invisible man can’t see. I started thinking about this wen I was watching the movie “Hollow Man” a couple of years ago.
 
This is the theory that many in the scientific body of North America agree with. Your answer is rather solid.

How is pound-thrust measured? (As in, what are the methods of doing so?)
 
Is it safe to temporarily use a 2003 era heatsink that was originally used on an Intel Celeron 2.4gHz on a new, Intel Core2 Quad Q6600?
 
kikie
Speed of light has been broken
Click to expand...

Meh, I don't think it is all it is cracked up to be, as this article explains... one major problem in asserting that the same photon can be in two places at exactly the same time is that it cannot be measured with 100% accuracy (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)... not to mention that people can stretch the definition of what a photon is in order to satisfy their results...
 
Touring Mars
Meh, I don't think it is all it is cracked up to be, as this article explains... one major problem in asserting that the same photon can be in two places at exactly the same time is that it cannot be measured with 100% accuracy (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)... not to mention that people can stretch the definition of what a photon is in order to satisfy their results...
Click to expand...
So, Einstein's relativity theory is still accurate? No matter can go faster than the speed of light.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Posts

Back