this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
486 points (96.9% liked)

Comic Strips

22080 readers
3026 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (5 children)

...Trying to work out if there's a way you could orient a camera, the subject, and the observer such that they could see a picture of when you were older.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago

If you figure this out, Einstein appears and kicks you in the nuts.

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

There are pictures that show you the exact age you are now. Sometimes they are called "mirrors"

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Nope. Mirrors show you what you looked like when you were 3-4 nanoseconds younger.

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 15 hours ago

Time is relative

[–] four@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You could just say "here's a picture of me when I was older", and then take the picture and show them. Technically older than you were when you said it

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 17 hours ago

You can take a picture of yourself holding an empty piece of paper and photomontage a later picture into it. You just need a speech bubble and you are good to go

[–] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Take a twin, put it on a rocket and make the rocket orbit around the earth at the light of speed (with a convenient reason that explain how you did it and why the rocket didn't just disintegrated or other bad stuff) then make him get on earth again and boom! He will see his twin which is a older version of him rn

[–] corvi@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You don’t even need to go near the speed of light. Modern gps satellites already have to account for relativity. It wouldn’t be seeing yourself significantly older, but it’s a measurable distinction.

[–] usrtrv@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago

Just going to a weekend trip to the mountains can give you a few nanoseconds difference: http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/tour/

[–] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well yeah, but for a very noticeable difference you either gonna need a lot of time or a lot of speed

[–] Klear@quokk.au 4 points 1 day ago

I'm going with a lot of speed. I love drugs!

[–] Klear@quokk.au 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Have the observer look at the subject through a system of mirrors so the light takes longer to reach them than the camera. The extra distance needs to be longer in light-seconds than it takes to create and show them the photo in seconds.

[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Then the picture is from the last, and the image you see in the mirrors is from a past before the image.

Technically, everything we see is from the past. We can't actually see the present. The further we see, we look further to the past. Things like lightnings we see in the wild happened some fractions of a second before we saw them, for example. Useless trivia but I like it.

[–] Klear@quokk.au 1 points 5 hours ago

Yeah sure, but the task was to show someone a picture that is older, not one that is not from the past. That would require some sketchy technobabble at least.