A few hours later, in the UK, another child is born at 5pm, but due to the time difference, its only August 4th in the UK.
Who is older, the child born first in Australia or the one born on the 4th and not the 5th in the UK?
Answers:
I think what this proves is that concepts like 'age' are relative. Which child has been alive longest? The Australian. Which child is 'officially' older? Probably the UK child.
Of course, if they both stayed in their respective time zones then they'd stay the same distance of time apart, and so the number of days old they were would keep pace. The problem comes if you change time zones.
The australian child, by how ever many hours seperates them.
The child born in australia. It was on this earth before the other child but sort of like an illusion(for want of a better word) the dates try and confuse you. If you just said a child was born in australia and then a few hours later another was born which was older its obvious and logical.
Sorry, my brain just fell out.
the child who was born into the world first! doesnt matter where they are!
The child that was born in UK a few hours later.
The Australian child definitely.
time difference is just semantics really.we could argue this theory even when daylight savings comes into effect but the fact remains that the kid in Australia came into the world hours before the kid in UK...
I think as the birth certificate would state the 4th on the British child they would be classed as the oldest even thou the Ozzie was born first.
the child in uk is older because whenever you are born, we go according to the dates and the uk child is born on 4th and the australian child is born on 5th.
in reality the one born in Australia is older but the one born in the UK will be older the rest of his life because his birthday will be on the 4th and the one in Australia will be on the 5th
the one who took its first breath
accordind to you : A few hours later, in the UK, another child is born at 5pm,
then australian child is older.
The Australia would be
Hi,
On paper the UK child would be the elder and because all time zones are calculated from Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), which is in the UK, I would presume in mathematical time calculations the UK child would still be the elder.
Skip
the child born in Australia
To simplify things we should all have our birthdays the same as thoroughbred horses. Their birthdays are all on the 1st of January irrespective when they were born.
The one born first in Australia because they have been alive the longest...The Australian would be a few hours older than the UK child.
If the Australian child where to move to the UK in years in come, their birthday would always be a day later than the child born in the UK. Therefore the Australian child will always be younger.
The child in Australia would actually be older, but the one born in the U.K. would be shown to be older because the birthday is August 4th, not 5th.
A few hours later, in the UK, another child is born
so if later the UK is the oldest
Wherever you are
Whatever you do
I'll always be there for you.
But if you ever,
and I mean ever,
pull a stunt like this again then your father and I will disown you.
Do I make myself clear ?
Duh. Even though the child in Australia was born first, the child in the UK would be older just because of the time.
This article contents is post by this website user, EduQnA.com doesn't promise its accuracy.
More Questions & Answers...