Originally posted by KevinMWHM
I'm new to the site (introduced by some friends for a chess tourney were having) and I saw a lot of people posting "hypothetical"questions. I have no formal schooling but I have two questions I always wanted to hear an attempted answer to.
1. Your travelling at the speed of light towards Earth with a telescope fixed on a populated locat ...[text shortened]... y no relative time would have passed for all matter?
Interested in hearing your answers...
Look, to give you a straight answer, it is technically true that you cannot travel at the speed of light by conventional means, but let's assume that you meant as close as possible before it's physically impossible...
1: Since relative time for you is much much slower than relative time for those being observed, yes, everyone would be zipping around like the bejaysus to use a colloquialism.
2: Yes, one could argue that Jupiter is objectively younger; as for the age of the universe, guaging it by the emission of light (background microwave radiation) which always travels at the same velocity, accurate measurements can be made.
I have to admit that I'm not an astrophysicist, but as a physicist who has done a little bit of that stuff, that's my initial interpretation. But then, I failed a few exams in my time too...
The problem for both you and I is the difference between relative and objective time... what is objective time, does it really exist? How does one measure time without some object/particle etc. which would be experiencing a relative timeframe?