Space travellers can run but they can't hide

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the humorous observation of a "space traveller" returning from a relativistic journey, with playful references to age and time. Participants note the peculiarities of age calculation, particularly in relation to birthdays, such as the rarity of February 29. There is a focus on the accuracy of age data derived programmatically, despite the unconventional nature of the situation. The conversation also touches on the idea of age being recalculated only on specific dates, leading to amusing implications. Overall, the thread combines humor with a light exploration of relativity and data interpretation.
DaveC426913
Gold Member
Messages
23,992
Reaction score
8,132
Finally spotted myself a space traveller, back from a relativistic tour.

No one ever suspects the doctor's office is actually paying attention...

relativistic traveller.png
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The names are blurred so...

Is that the woman called "Bright",
who can travel much faster than light,
who went out one day
in a relative way
and came back on the previous night?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Borek, Astronuc, berkeman and 1 other person
DaveC426913 said:
Finally spotted myself a space traveller, back from a relativistic tour.
Nah, my mom was 39 for many, many years. All you had to do was ask her. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes strangerep
The spooky part about this is that their ages are not self-reported. They are derived programmatically from their birth date.

(And yet they are not in error.)
 
It took 3 years for the database query to complete. That person really was 39 when their age was computed, and the other person really was 42 when their age was computed.
 
  • Haha
Likes DaveC426913
You're half right, but the data is accurate.
 
I guess the story has a sad morale for one of them?
 
  • Like
Likes DaveC426913
DaveC426913 said:
You're half right, but the data is accurate.
Could it be that the age is only recalculated on the person's birthday, which is 29 February?
 
  • #10
Simpler. Pt. #2 died 3 years ago.
 
  • #11
DrGreg said:
Could it be that the age is only recalculated on the person's birthday, which is 29 February?
I know OCT 31 = DEC 25, but Oct 18 = Feb 29 is new to me.
 
  • #12
mfb said:
I know OCT 31 = DEC 25, but Oct 18 = Feb 29 is new to me.
Good catch. o:) I couldn't see the wood for the trees there.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K