I found a calculator. The relativistic time dilation for traveling for 90 years at 500 mph is .00000000254 years
Wow. I figured there was a way to calculate it but I didn't think it would be that miniscule. Even if we're talking about air line pilots or flight attendants that spend a third of their life traveling close to the speed of sound, it seems like that wouldn't even buy them an extra day.
Yeah. You really have to get to a significant percentage of the speed of light to have a significant effect. Unless you're coordinating satellites for a GPS system.
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Wow. I figured there was a way to calculate it but I didn't think it would be that miniscule. Even if we're talking about air line pilots or flight attendants that spend a third of their life traveling close to the speed of sound, it seems like that wouldn't even buy them an extra day.
Yeah. You really have to get to a significant percentage of the speed of light to have a significant effect. Unless you're coordinating satellites for a GPS system.
But doesn't mass increase the closer you get to speed of light? Imagine a human going close to the speed of light gaining mass. the extra time you gain will be cancelled out when you die younger jokes.
Yeah. You really have to get to a significant percentage of the speed of light to have a significant effect. Unless you're coordinating satellites for a GPS system.
But doesn't mass increase the closer you get to speed of light? Imagine a human going close to the speed of light gaining mass. the extra time you gain will be cancelled out when you die younger jokes.
Edit: correcting autocorrect.
I think that’s right. Length contracts, too. But I always mix up which observer observes the changes…
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
But doesn't mass increase the closer you get to speed of light? Imagine a human going close to the speed of light gaining mass. the extra time you gain will be cancelled out when you die younger jokes.
Edit: correcting autocorrect.
I think that’s right. Length contracts, too. But I always mix up which observer observes the changes…
I think humans are living longer due to advances in medicine and especially dentistry. Plus, we're slowly learning the diets that promote life and which ones promote death.
One thing I do want to ask Neil Tyson is, if time travels at different speeds all over the universe, how can we be sure the universe is 13.8 billion years old? Is it 10 billion around various black holes? I'm assuming we're talking earth years, but shouldn't the age of the universe be based on the average of all time speeds throughout the universe? The 13.8 billion number seems a tad Earthcentric (yes, I just made that word up).
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
"The age of the universe" is the age that would be measured by a co-moving observer—that is, by an observer for whom the expansion of the universe is equal in all directions.
That kind of co-moving observer is a lot like the old Newtonian concept of an observer who is at absolute rest. And it's true that the expansion of the universe does break the rule that there are no preferred reference frames.
That was never really the rule, though. The rule is that there are no "locally preferred frames". Any observations that you can make within any smallish volume of spacetime can be described in any reference frame you want, and the laws of nature will look the same in all of them. If you want to observe large-scale properties of the universe, though, then what you see doesn't just depend on the laws of nature, but also on the particular initial conditions of a big chunk of the universe.
The issue isn't a special weird loophole that comes up in cosmology. Running into a wall doesn't produce the same effects as standing still beside the wall, even though the frames that are moving and not moving, relative to the wall, are equally valid as frames. As far as the laws of nature are concerned, the wall could just as well have been moving differently, but given that the wall is doing what it is doing, one frame is running into the wall and the other frame isn't. It's the same here. The particular way the universe happens to be expanding, given the actual initial conditions that we had, selects a particular set of reference frames to be ones in which the expansion is the same in all directions.
These are the frames that are implied when we talk about the age of the universe. An observer who has been moving relative to those frames at high speed ever since the Big Bang, or who has been living close to an event horizon all this time, will have recorded a much shorter elapsed time than that age.
I think humans are living longer due to advances in medicine and especially dentistry. Plus, we're slowly learning the diets that promote life and which ones promote death.
This is one of the reasons (or at least the prevailing theory) on the prevalence of heart disease now, compared to 100 years ago. People (and their hearts) are living longer. It isn't so much that there's more heart disease, it's that people who would have had heart disease 100 years ago were usually already dead before it had a chance to present. Same likely applies to some extent to cancer.
You live long enough, and systems will start getting funky that in previous generations rarely lived long enough to get funky.
the extra time you gain will be cancelled out when you die younger 
jokes.
