If you had a clock facing you and traveling to the right at the speed of light - how long would it take for the second hand to make one revolution?
“By definition” -
“Time is the MEASURE of RELATIVE change.”
If the clock was accurate it would take 1 minute to complete 1 revolution of the second hand. That means light traveled 299,792,458 x 60 = 17,987,547,480 meters. If light didn’t travel that distance, then THE CLOCK IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!
Shutter to think if James was here - 
So if the center of the clock is traveling at the speed of light off to the right - how fast is the tip of the second hand moving as it leaves the 12 o’clock position?
Don’t give me an impossible scenario and then expect me to answer with a possible answer. You are asking BS and expecting me to give a logical answer. When I don’t you say “ah ha, gotcha!” That’s not how it works!
I clearly outlined distance and time, and absolute velocity, with numbers, equations, coordinates, the light sphere, and time, in my Absolute Velocity thread. Deal with it! 
…or you still have a shot at this question that nobody has answered:
Twins standing on Earth, side by side, no relative motion between them. There is a mirror they placed 1 light minute from Earth, and both verified that light takes 2 minutes to travel from the start point where they are, to the mirror, and back to their start point. They repeatedly have measured it and it takes EXACTLY 2 minutes for light to return to their position, once sent.
One of the twins starts a journey and just as he starts his journey the light is emitted to the mirror. The twin travels his journey and returns. He claims his clock reads 51 seconds for the total time of the journey. The stay at home twin says his clock reads exactly 1 minute.
Exactly when the twin returned home from his journey the twins were side by side, no relative motion and they start identical stop watches, simultaneously.
Question: What do the stop watches read when the light returns to their position??
Just another example of “Philosophy ILP style” -
Ask a stumping question - expect no answer but plenty of obfuscation.
You mean ask for an answer to an impossible scenario.
Here’s another: If there are 3 pink elephants traveling at .5c, how much time does it take for them to travel to the moon?
oh, another: If a train is moving .5c down the tracks, why do people on the train think that it’s the tracks are moving .5c and they are the ones at rest?? (rolls eyes)
…and another: How does Santa deliver all those presents to the Christian children of the world in 1 night? Why doesn’t he deliver presents to the other religions children?
So for you - how much slower does the clock have to be traveling for it to not be “impossible”? 
As slow as possible in order for the second hand to actually make revolutions as the clock travels in space.
In any case, 1 revolution of the second hand means 1 minute has elapsed, as long as the clock is accurate. If the clock is not capable of having its second hand make a revolution while it travels, then the clock is broken! Get a new clock!
A clock is just a measuring device, it is not time itself!
Like a ruler is not distance, it measures distance. A clock is not time, it MEASURES TIME!
So what is time “itself”?
Duration.
What is tautological substitution? 
There is duration, and there is a clock, which measures duration. Measuring duration with a clock is called “time.” Measuring distance with a ruler is called length. Time has units of seconds, and length has units of meters.
Good now?
Distance and time (duration) are inevitable. They can not be created and they can not be destroyed!
It’s clocks and rulers that are man made objects that can be destroyed, and generally are like any other man made object, they break and don’t work properly!
Philosophy Coalition of Truth style: “any answer other than my own is obfuscation.”
You know, being one of the “my TOE or you’re wrong” dupes of James S. Saint.
Oh, and he is one of the particularly arrogant dogmatist here in that regard because he carries this over into the is/ought world as well.
No.
“What is distance?”
“Length.”
" "
When your measuring device says that time/duration is passing slower (possibly even stopped) - why don’t you believe your measuring device?
Because traveling takes time. According to you, If I were to travel at the speed of light, my clock would stop. I know that is BS because it takes 25,000 years for light to travel from Earth to the center of the galaxy, traveling AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Light’s clock elapses 25,000 years, but you say time would stop if I was traveling along with light. Light itself recognizes it takes 25,000 years, but you say it takes NO TIME! Complete BS!
Why the BS? Because Einstein couldn’t figure out how to keep the speed of light constant and make his theory work, so he created a BOX OF BAND-AIDS. “Once a Fudger always a Fudger!” in my best Jennifer Aniston voice! LOL
I didn’t get deep into the subject, so there’s a possibility that I’m messing some things up. But my suspicion is that Motor Daddy is right.
There is a very clear distinction between perception of time and time itself. He gave an example earlier. If 8 hours at work feel like a year to you, does that mean that those 8 hours are a year? Does that mean time is passing slower for you? I don’t think so. And what about a child with progeria? Is time passing faster or slower for the child simply because the child is aging faster? I don’t think it does. I seriously doubt it that time is some arbitrary subjective thing (as postmodernists would certainly like it to be the case.) I’d say it’s very much real. How you describe it is arbitrary. How you experience it is subjective. But time itself isn’t either of those.
I can look at a clock and easily tell how much its hands have moved since some earlier momemt. However, it’s significantly more difficult to verify that those movements correspond to known units of time (seconds, minutes and/or hours.)
I can very easily tell that a sweep hand (the one that is supposed to count seconds) has moved certain number of times since the clock has started running. But it’s not so simple to determine whether it moves one second at a time. It hinges upon the definition of the word “second” which I’m pretty sure is tied to Earth (it’s not an abstract unit of time like James’s tick.)
The above is problematic from a basic level of measuring, is right.
But basically time exists not a measure of some thing, and it is superfluous to claim that the sundial measures the circumference of the earth as it revolves around the sun in 24 hours.
Time is am arbitrary calculation , for before the planetary system’s genesis. other beings may have measured from other revolving systems.
The universal measurement of time does depend On C squared, where the relativeness of it is implied to change duration, as masses which participate change the the length is variable
In that sense relatively inclusive lengths determine each other.
While austronauts’span of time changes, within the relative space between the velocity of the spaceship relative to that existing between the ship and against that of the projected destination, that inclusive space is superimposed upon by the velocity of the planetary system as it moves with respect to other cosmological movements, including the largest theoretical relativity between our cosmos and others, in a sea of similar universes.
( If you go along with that interpretation)
The idea of levels and levels of universes ad-infinitum can boggle the mind, to veer out of the forum’s intent, but then maybe there is probability that the idea of an absolute universe can exist, after all
I may not totally understand the philosophical underneath assumptions of the mathematical and logical presumptions, but neither do those models have absolute bearing.
If space time is curved in an absolute sense, it still could comply to the requirements of an infinite universe.But another view may merely eliminite finite and infinite bounderies as determinates, like the ancients used to with their early model of an infinite structure consisting of turtles laying on one another’s back.
The idea of nothingness with no consisting energy or matter may collapse , and perhaps this accounts for boundaries to form on a state where the cosmos is collapsing , as in red giants collapse into black holes. The giant central black hole may create an equally growing nothingness where boundaries may be formed with other galaxies, but before this happens, the curveture may create different lAyers of bubbles of time.
In essence, there may be no time and all of it condenses toward the instantenious point, where all cosmos with incredible frequency breathe in and out, so as to create the perfect foundation.
With this incredibly naive interpretation I rest my case.
Just a thought.
When philosophers talk of bubbles and physicists of foam, that is what they also are trying to correlate.
He isn’t. You blokes have a lot to learn about time, I guess.
I only raised the issue as an example of how discussions go on ILP - people make wild assumptions then dig in. 
The same could be said about the air temperature - but we are talking in the objective science sense.
Just something to think about - The second hand is spinning - the Earth is whirling - the Earth is orbiting - the Sun is orbiting - and the Milky Way is streaking across space – so how fast is that second hand really moving?
I’m guessing you two weren’t here some 10 years ago when James and Carleas debated about this topic. I didn’t get to watch all of it - but it got deep into the details. James demonstrated flaw in Special Relativity but accuracy in General Relativity - in a few threads.
“By definition” -
“Time is the MEASURE of RELATIVE change.”
Your point being?
I asked about a clock traveling in an Einstein train at the speed of light. MD could see that the second hand would not be able to move without exceeding the speed of light - so he avoided the issue saying that the clock has to be moving slower - slower relative to what? - how slow is it moving through space right now?
The educated point is that time is a measure of relative movement - relative to something else - relative to the observer. When anything is moving at the speed of light relative to any observer - the measure of relative changing (“time”) aboard the moving object is frozen - nothing aboard the light speed train can move relative to anything else aboard the train - at all - no aging, no clock movement, no thought - total suspension and stagnation. And that means that “time” (the relative changing aboard the object) has stopped.
Any slowing down of the train allows for any clocks or relative movements or aging aboard the train to begin - time begins to be restored. But as long as the train is moving at all - it’s clocks will be moving slower than the observer’s clocks. That has been tested - it isn’t merely speculation.
Everything is moving - every clock is speeding through space - so which clock is accurate? Which is slowed? It is a matter of relative motion between the observer and the clock in question. Every observer will see the clock that is moving with him as the accurate clock - all other clocks will appear to be slower.
And that is what those equations are about - the Lorentz and James’ proposed correction - how much will a moving clock slow down. James had a really long debate with Carleas in his Stopped Clock Paradox thread (part 1 and 2). He outlined the confusion and a special relativity flaw.