<p>For the fist question it is theoretically possible, and it is explained in the popular <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Twin Paradox">Twin Paradox</a> example.</p>

<p>For the second one I'm not sure if there are some advances but as far as I know there is an important problem about relativistic speeds: the mass of the object traveling at such speed increases dramatically <strike>to the point it would weight so much it would collapse</strike>(<a href="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29632/reletivistic-mass-as-seen-by-different-observers/29633#29633" title="Relativistic Mass">It wouldn't collapse actually</a>).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-22T13:32:20.330Z
Fast moving objects do not collapse, as explained for example here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29632/reletivistic-mass-as-seen-by-different-observers/29633#29633 The relativistic mass is not invariant, so there exists a reference frame in which I (sitting in my chair) am moving at 99.9999% of the speed of light. But yet I am not collapsing. Gravitational collapse depends on other things (namely the stress-energy temsor) than relativistic mass.
mpv
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-22T13:55:24.707Z
Thanks @mpv , I shall removoe de collapsing part from my answer.
Joan.bdm
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-22T14:26:40.407Z
Additionally, the claim "the mass of the object traveling at such speed increases dramatically" is mistaken, or at best engenders a conceptual confusion better left to the dustbin of history.
Stan Liou
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-23T05:13:47.703Z
Why do you say it is a mistake? The inertia of the object does actually increase.
Py-ser
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-23T09:49:52.347Z
@Py-ser: In what sense are you using 'inertia' in your statement? If you're transplanting the Newtonian 'resistance to acceleration', then yes, it is greater, but then it is not a scalar and depends on direction of applied force, from $\gamma m$ to $\gamma^3 m$, and so is not actually the relativistic mass. The relativistic mass is just another name for total energy anyway.
Stan Liou
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-21T14:00:35.407Z
2014-05-22T13:58:47.490Z
2017-04-13T12:40:15.377Z
Joan.bdm
<p>According to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, one's speed in relation to a relatively stationary object would 'slow down' time on the moving object.</p>

<p>With this in mind, would it be possible to travel in a straight line away from Earth (stationary object) in a space craft able to travel at +90% the speed of light for 2 years and return with significant time dilation?</p>

<p>What technologies have we generated that could reach speeds for significant time dilation (+10 years)?</p>

<space-time><speed>
Taking Advantage of Time Dilation
proPhet
# Taking Advantage of Time Dilation

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-05-21)

According to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, one's speed in relation to a relatively stationary object would 'slow down' time on the moving object.

With this in mind, would it be possible to travel in a straight line away from Earth (stationary object) in a space craft able to travel at +90% the speed of light for 2 years and return with significant time dilation?

What technologies have we generated that could reach speeds for significant time dilation (+10 years)?

**Tags:** space-time, speed


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-05-21. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

For the fist question it is theoretically possible, and it is explained in the popular [Twin Paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox "Twin Paradox") example.

For the second one I'm not sure if there are some advances but as far as I know there is an important problem about relativistic speeds: the mass of the object traveling at such speed increases dramatically to the point it would weight so much it would collapse([It wouldn't collapse actually](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29632/reletivistic-mass-as-seen-by-different-observers/29633#29633 "Relativistic Mass")).

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Fast moving objects do not collapse, as explained for example here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29632/reletivistic-mass-as-seen-by-different-observers/29633#29633 The relativistic mass is not invariant, so there exists a reference frame in which I (sitting in my chair) am moving at 99.9999% of the speed of light. But yet I am not collapsing. Gravitational collapse depends on other things (namely the stress-energy temsor) than relativistic mass.  
> **username_1**: Thanks @username_2 , I shall removoe de collapsing part from my answer.  
> **username_3**: Additionally, the claim "the mass of the object traveling at such speed increases dramatically" is mistaken, or at best engenders a conceptual confusion better left to the dustbin of history.  
> **username_4**: Why do you say it is a mistake? The inertia of the object does actually increase.  
> **username_3**: @username_4: In what sense are you using 'inertia' in your statement? If you're transplanting the Newtonian 'resistance to acceleration', then yes, it is greater, but then it is not a scalar and depends on direction of applied force, from $\gamma m$ to $\gamma^3 m$, and so is not actually the relativistic mass. The relativistic mass is just another name for total energy anyway.  

---

