>Hi Houston,
>
>Thanks for the information.
>
>Now for the big question. If I were traveling in a spacecraft at the speed of light over a certain time reference, for example, one earth year, would I age more slowly than people on earth?

Yes, in theory you would age at a considerably lower rate.

> for example, if I took off at the speed of light and travel 1/2 year away from earth, and then reversed course for 1/2 returning to earth, would my traveling at the speed of light effect my age, or would I age 1 earth year during my journal, just like everyone on earth would age 1 year?

According to theory - if (by your wrist watch) one year has elapsed and you have been traveling at the speed of light, then you would have aged considerably less than those on earth. I can understand why the apparent frequency of light changes dependent upon the motion of the origin and/or observer, but not why the apparent rate of change of time should also be relative.

What intrigues me more is wondering whether the distance actually traveled relative to the earth has any bearing. For example, most texts use the example you have provided above. What if your journey bounced you (many millions of times) between the earth and the moon at the speed of light? Or extrapolating further, you only bounced between two positions separated by a fraction of an inch - lets call this a mega-vibration. Are you still moving forward in time at a considerably reduced rate relative to nearby objects that are not subject to the mega-vibration?

This brings me to a variation on Schroedinger's cat paradox. If your mega-vibrating vessel is contained within another vessel and the outer vessel is not also subject to the mega-vibration then it would seem that in order for a (relative) year to pass for both vessels then the inner vessel may need to appear to have only partial-presence.