This seems like a really dumb question, but I don't think it's as easy as it sounds...
Okay. Say Jill was born in New York City at midnight, at the very same time that Sandra was born in San Francisco at 9 pm. But then Jill moves to Los Angeles and Sandra moves to London. So Sandra is now 8 hours ahead of Jill. Who's older?
2006-08-22 23:25:17 · 18 answers · asked by mysticalmochamuffin 2 in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
I get why some of you say that they're the same age. But what I'm wondering about is travel time: Sandra lost 8 hours of her life traveling, while Jill gained 3 hours.
2006-08-22 23:35:48 · update #1
You are confusing "time of existence", with "clock time". In other words, they have both spent the same amount of "time" on earth, but where as one person refers to a particular moment in time as being midnight, based upon the location of the sun, the other refers to it as 9 pm. "Clock time" is thus, simply a way of communicating with others in other parts of the world, relative to the time of day it seems to them to be.
2006-08-23 00:46:25 · answer #1 · answered by eric l 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jill may have been born at the same time as Sandra (on a world time frame) but by being born at midnight she was actually born the next day. Ex. 12:00 am Jan 1, 2006 in New York was 9:00 pm Dec 31, 2005 in San Fran. I say Jill is older. Best wishes
2006-08-22 23:29:13 · answer #2 · answered by colorist 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither, they are the same age. Neither has travelled through time they just spent some of their life moving to a part of the world where the clocks have a different time. If by some abortion of science Jill was able to travel through time then their age would be measured by their life relative to their births. AKA if Jill went back in time at age 40 and met Sandra at age 17 at that point in time Jill would be older.
2006-08-22 23:50:18 · answer #3 · answered by W0LF 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they were born at exactly the same time to the second, then they are the same age, neither is older.
However on paper Sandra would be the older, it would never matter if any of them moved as it's the time and date of birth that would determine a persons age!
2006-08-22 23:33:52 · answer #4 · answered by Wilf 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sandra
2006-08-22 23:30:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
9x3+2=29 it could't be 30 the formulation is faulty ,what it would be is chop up it 10x3(people) -25(radio) =5 he get the $2 and gave the three $a million expenditures to the different 2 5-2=3 there is not any way it grow to be 29 it confuse you via fact he saved the $2 so as that the different 2 adult adult males have $9 fairly so 25+5(radio) =30 in case you divide it to ten = 3 -2(he saved it remember) =a million <--the lacking $a million bill LoL i'm hoping i help XD
2016-11-05 10:45:31 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither! Their respective ages have not been changed b/c they move. One might be able to celebrate earlier than the other - due to the physical location on the planet and relative to time zones, etc - but their age is their age.
2006-08-22 23:35:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since they were both born at the same time, they are both the exact same age, regardless of where they live. The biological process of ageing isn't dependent on time-zones.
2006-08-22 23:34:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No body is older,both r same coz they were born at the same time in this world.The time difference is only between countries.
2006-08-22 23:36:10 · answer #9 · answered by dataradi777 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the one who was born first
2006-08-22 23:43:08 · answer #10 · answered by moonlight 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋