Age Difference in Earth Orbit Around Another Star

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

If we were to take the present Earth and set it into gravitational orbit around another star revolving at a rate of once every 92 Earth days, would the people in that orbit age faster, slower or at the same rate as those in the current Earth's orbit?

 

[dav2008]

It would depend on if the Earth is orbiting slower or faster around the other sun. The relativistic effects would be pretty small though.

 

[EL]

If we were to take the present Earth and set it into gravitational orbit around another star revolving at a rate of once every 92 Earth days, would the people in that orbit age faster, slower or at the same rate as those in the current Earth's orbit?

The same rate. (Relativistic effects are completely negligible.)

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

It would depend on if the Earth is orbiting slower or faster around the other sun. The relativistic effects would be pretty small though.

Let me phrase my question. If we were to clone a copy of the Earth and set it into orbit around another star whose gravitational force caused the Earth Clone to revolve at a rate of once every 92 days (Original Earth revolves = 365 days; Earth Clone revolves = 92 Days) would the average rate of aging on the Earth Clone compare or contrast to the aging rate on the Original Earth?

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

The same rate. (Relativistic effects are completely negligible.)

Okay, that's what made the most logical sense to me.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is the first thread I've ever seen that has more replies (4) than it does views (3).

 

[EL]

Let me phrase my question. If we were to clone a copy of the Earth and set it into orbit around another star whose gravitational force caused the Earth Clone to revolve at a rate of once every 92 days (Original Earth revolves = 365 days; Earth Clone revolves = 92 Days) would the average rate of aging on the Earth Clone compare or contrast to the aging rate on the Original Earth?

Let me ask you a question: Why would people age faster or slower just because they happen to live on the other planet?
(Okay, in principle there may be small relativistic effects, but I guess that'll be something like seconds over a lifetime...that is completely negligible.)

 

[disregardthat]

i didnt think that astronomy had anything to do with peoples aging. i thought it was the oxygen after it had been used in the body (dont know what they are called in english) (maybe free radicals (i don't know)) that aged the body.

 

[Exotic-Matter]

i didnt think that astronomy had anything to do with peoples aging. i thought it was the oxygen after it had been used in the body (dont know what they are called in english) (maybe free radicals (i don't know)) that aged the body.

Well, after all your body is made of electrons and neutrons, and all other elemntary particles, and these particles are afected by the relativistic effect!

For example the twin paradox, it has something to do with aging.

 

[selfAdjoint]

i didnt think that astronomy had anything to do with peoples aging. i thought it was the oxygen after it had been used in the body (dont know what they are called in english) (maybe free radicals (i don't know)) that aged the body.

All those biological processes constitute a kind of clock, and clock rates are affected by relative speeds in special relativity and by gravity differences in general relativity.

 

[Phobos]

Note that even if there was a relativistic difference (I'm not doing the math on this but the speeds are so low that I'd say it's negligible in this example), the 2 subjects would notice no difference in their lifespan unless they tried to compare their aging to the other person (i.e., each would feel the passage of time 'normally').