Could Time Dilation Make Us Age Differently on Other Planets?

[bassplayer142]

Since we are moving at high speeds relative to the universe only if we are assuming that the universe is not moving. Wouldn't humans or any species for that matter age differently depending on where you are at in the universe. If another planet is moving at half the speed of us their lifespan would be shorter as compared to a planet that is moving a high speeds relative to the universe. It would be nice to find a planet where we could all live for 500 years.

 

[daniel_i_l]

First of all - this should be in the relativity forums.
And to answer your question, there are two points that i think need to be cleared up:
1) Time dilation can't make a person live longer in the sense that he can do more in his life.
2) Time dilation means that if you look at someone moving relative to you, you see his clock ticking at a different rate than yours. It has nothing to do with the environment.

 

[russ_watters]

Put another way, time dilation is something you see when you compare your clock to someone else's. It doesn't show up on your clock alone. So you won't live any longer according to your perception.

 

[whatta]

Put another way, time dilation is something you see when you compare your clock to someone else's. It doesn't show up on your clock alone. So you won't live any longer according to your perception.

assume for a second that your clock ticks slower compared to everybody else. that way you could probably witness much more events and, in effect, live longer.

 

[ZapperZ]

assume for a second that your clock ticks slower compared to everybody else. that way you could probably witness much more events and, in effect, live longer.

But this assumption is faulty. In SR, you only observe OTHER clocks being slower. So you are making an assumption that doesn't exist.

Zz.

 

[whatta]

that does not matter, if we can't maximize benefits, we should minimize losses. that is, find ourselves the place where other clocks run as fast as possible (on average?). edit: I believe we are living in such a place already.

 

[Hootenanny]

that does not matter, if we can't maximize benefits, we should minimize losses. that is, find ourselves the place where other clocks run as fast as possible (on average?). edit: I believe we are living in such a place already.

I'm having difficulty understanding you comment, could perhaps clarify your point please.

 

[ZapperZ]

that does not matter, if we can't maximize benefits, we should minimize losses. that is, find ourselves the place where other clocks run as fast as possible (on average?). edit: I believe we are living in such a place already.

Unless you think you are in a "business" forum, your understanding of the "time dilation" is rather faulty. Somehow, you do not realize that ALL inertial reference frames see other inertial frames as being slower.

So yes, it DOES matter, especially you try to apply faulty principle.

Zz.

 

[whatta]

thanks for showing ad hominem at work. i am not going to discuss your claims about my understanding of whatever, but I would like to know how

ALL inertial reference frames see other inertial frames as being slower

has anything to do with

find ourselves the place where other clocks run as fast as possible

?

for Hootenanny, if everything around you moves fast, its clocks tick slower (happy ZapperZ?) so you could expect larger time between events on your timometer than in case where everything around would move slower (which is the case on Earth). I do agree this topic is better suited for philosophy ("business" ?) forum.

 

[rewebster]

To me, the word 'time' seems defined differently by different people for different circumstances. Most (physicists it seems) who use the word 'time' (in an 'applied' way of thinking) assume/know right away that it means 'measure of time'. I wonder if there would be less confusion to 'all' if 'time dilation' was written 'measured time dilation' ?

 

[whatta]

p.s.:

you try to apply faulty principle

so? is that illegal? if not for people trying to apply faulty principles, we wouldn't ever break out of euclidean geometry, and this very forum section wouldn't exist.

 

[Hootenanny]

t
for Hootenanny, if everything around you moves fast, its clocks tick slower

An important point to make here is that you would observe its clock to tick slower, it wouldn't actually tick slower in its stationary reference frame. The same principle applies for relative velocities.

 

[whatta]

An important point to make here is that you would observe its clock to tick slower, it wouldn't actually tick slower in its stationary reference frame.

...remember Morpheus from The Matrix? What is real? We live in our frames and what we see (*cough... measure) is exactly what's real. Why care what happens in their frames?

 

[Hootenanny]

p.s.:so? is that illegal? if not for people trying to apply faulty principles, we wouldn't ever break out of euclidean geometry, and this very forum section wouldn't exist.

One crucial difference, non-elucidean geometry is not faulty, nor is any of Lobachevsky's reasoning. Yours however is faulty, or at the very least you are proposing a model which is contrary to currently accepted theory.

 

[whatta]

no difference. it is same "what if" reasoning.

 

[Hootenanny]

...remember Morpheus from The Matrix? What is real? We live in our frames and what we see (*cough... measure) is exactly what's real. Why care what happens in their frames?

Your quoting a fictional character from a film in order to justify your argument?

#end of conversation#

 

[whatta]

well, the end is the end.

 

[Ballon]

for sure, the time (like the "speed") is relative to a frame of reference, so pfmentor is right to say that for you, the time will tick the same, faster (or slower) than someone else, yes, no doubt, but for you, time will be the same...take for an analogy a computer CPU clock, if you reduce the clock (or overclock), you can make more instruction / sec than a regular computer, but you won't make and instruction to run faster than the required number of cycle it does need...so if an "INC" need 1 cycle of the clock, it will still need 1 cycle of the new clock.

 

[whatta]

...take for an analogy a computer CPU clock, if you reduce the clock (or overclock), you can make more instruction / sec than a regular computer, but you won't make and instruction to run faster than the required number of cycle it does need...so if an "INC" need 1 cycle of the clock, it will still need 1 cycle of the new clock.

and yet people overclock their CPUs, because it does make sense.

 

[Ballon]

and yet people overclock their CPUs, because it does make sense.

Yes, but you are not the CPU, it does make sense for you (you are external of the CPU frame of reference)

 

[whatta]

so was my initial point, is there a difference between making your lifespan longer, or living in an environment with fastest changes rate? I've felt that original thread question could be transformed into something like this and, as I said (or as it turned out) later, this should rather be discussed otherwhere.

 

[Ballon]

if you want, but it will be rather something like : if you can make "someone" who is in frame reference "where the time is faster than yours", to work on a theory for you, during his all life, then he will give you the result at his death, and you'll have a benefit quicker, but still for you, a second was and is a second...of your life, so you won't make more "work" whenever, you slowdown of accelerate your own time compare to someone else..., the benefit is there, just when "communication or exchange of information" can be done between 2 frame of references...

 

[whatta]

...that is if things I interact with while "doing my work" are (almost) in my frame, which is true for slow objects, but their time runs faster than that of things passing by at 0.9c... which brings us to the point when there is no difference between what me and you have said. or is there?

 

[Ballon]

so was my initial point, is there a difference between making your lifespan longer, or living in an environment with fastest changes rate? I've felt that original thread question could be transformed into something like this and, as I said (or as it turned out) later, this should rather be discussed otherwhere.

This is the point that is not "clear or maybe mistaken", your lifespan longer ? longer than who ?, you see, you need a reference there ! Because for you, your lifespan is, and will stay the same, it will never be longer, but, agreed , to another person in another frame reference, it could be longer or shorter...but as i stated, for you, no benefit (same analogy applies for fastest change rate world, you'll be also living faster, so no benefit).

Of course if you can isolate yourself in a different frame (slower time of faster time), and come back to that current frame as you wish...but this is another story...and still, your life won't be longer ;) but agreed, in that eventuality only, you'll have a benefit over the others, as (relatively) to the others, you'll have a lifespan longer...

 

[bassplayer142]

What about the twin paradox. One stays home and one goes light speed to return 30 years younger then the first. When the older one dies the younger one is still living. This is assuming they both live to say 80 years old. Wouldn't he experience 30 years more. Or if they were to both have a certain task that takes say 30 years would the older one be done when he return and the younger one would not be done with the task. I might have explained this wrong. Let me know if it makes sense.

 

[Ballon]

Simply said, they both had 80 years of their "own" time, no one (compare to their own reference) lived longer, but compare to each other, one died before the other one however, it does not mean that this one had a shorter life, and yes, the older one would have finished the task, while the younger one not...yet, the conclusion of the twin paradox, is, let your brother do the home work when you are in travel :)

 

[rewebster]

From what whatta is saying is that if I set my clocks to run slower by 2.4 hours per day, I should live 10% longer.

 

[Ballon]

Once again, it is true and false, it does just depend of the reference you use for your comparaison, 10% longer than who ? 10% longer that the others (who still have the "relative" clock 10% faster than you), yes, by comparaison (relative)...but since your time is constant to...yourself, you'll feel exactly same longer of life, take the analogy of the CPU clock again, if your CPU will die at 1,000,000 of cycle, if you overclock it, it will still die at 1,000,000 cycle, it will die sooner for you, but from the CPU point of view, it has the same "lifespan" (1,000,000 cycles), its life was neither shorter or longer... is it a concept so difficult to understand ?

 

[Mentz114]

The only way to make your life seem longer is to be bored as much as possible. When you're bored time passes slowly. If you're really enjoying life and doing lots of things your life will flash away before you know it.

See 'Catch-22' by Joseph Heller.