It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. 100% / 3 = 33.333…%
…and why don’t the 3 pieces add up to 100%? Because you never completely divided the 100% into 3 equal pieces. You never get to the point where you can say “ah ha, I finally finished dividing 100% into 3 equal pieces.”
You can’t finish the division, it goes on infinitely, hence the …
What you are doing is stopping the division that’s partially completed, sweeping the remainder under the rug, and calling it good at 33.333…%.
You know you can’t finish the division of 100/3, don’t you?
If you think you can divide 100 into 3 equal parts, let’s see the long division of you completing the division, with 3 equal parts. Let’s see it!
I will try to clarify my position on the subject of time one more time just in case someone cares. If noone cares, then feel free to ignore this post.
I don’t think that the definition of the word “time” is particularly relevant. Indeed, it appears to me to be no more than a distraction. If there’s a word that is relevant, it is the word “year”.
If the word “year” means “the time it takes the Earth to orbit around the Sun”, then what the above is saying is that the Earth has orbited 30 times for one twin but only 2 times for another. That seems like a contradiction. How many times the Earth has orbited around the Sun should be the same for everyone.
The only way to salvage the above, it seems to me, is to change the definition of the word “year” to mean something like “Whatever someone perceives to be a period of tiem that takes the Earth to orbit around the Sun”. But that would be a word game, wouldn’t it be? And such a definition would be rather useless (other than as a means of deception.)
The amount of time that has passed, it seems to me, is exactly the same for both twins, it’s just that one of the twins has aged less than the other and one of the cloks (the one aboard the spaceship) is inaccurate.
Given the above, what’s the mistake that I’m making?
A “year” is both the completion of the Earth orbiting the Sun once, but it is also 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours per day, 365 1/4 days “per year.”
The problem with that is that the Earth is getting farther from the sun, and it is taking more time for the earth to complete a lap around the sun. So a “year” is not an absolute amount of time as far as how much time it takes Earth to make 1 lap around the sun. But it IS an absolute amount of time as far as how many seconds are in a year now. As time itself progresses the earth takes more seconds to make a lap around the sun, so a “year” is not a fixed amount of time.
Absolute time is 1 second per second, with total disregard for motion, mass, suns, earths, or any physical body in space. Time continues to tick at a constant rate, and objects change motion. That’s just the facts of mass, distance, and time.
Yes, that’s what you think. I’m aware of it (: You think what you’re saying is a fact. Other people don’t. I, for example, don’t think it’s a fact. I think something else is a fact.
I disagree with that. Just like I disagree with (\frac{1}{3} = 0.\dot3).
The long division can’t be finished, I agree with that, which means that (33.333\dotso %) is not the result.
Also note that the long division that we most commonly use is looking for a base-10 result. If it fails to find such a number, it doesn’t mean there isn’t an answer in some other base.
How am I doing that? Why do you think I’m doing that? If anyone, it is you who’s doing it. You’re the one using (\frac{1}{3} = 0.\dot3) as a premise in your arguments, right? It’s isn’t me (:
Of course I do. What makes you think that I don’t?
I think you’re confusing “finding a result in base-10” with “finding a result in any base”.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the time it takes the Earth to orbit around the Sun is not a constant i.e. it is changing as we speak. Perhaps slowly but surely. As such, it is not particularly useful to use such a unit to measure time. Thus, the word “year” shouldn’t be defined in terms of how long it takes the Earth to orbit around the Sun, but rather, in terms of seconds (which I suppose are more reliable even though a bit elusive.) In other words, the word “year” should be defined to mean something like “31,556,926 seconds”. That might very well be the case, it’s just that that kind of definition makes it difficult for me to communicate the point that I’m trying to make due to the fact that the word “second” is a bit elusive. At least that’s how it appears to me.
Right, a year now is a specific amount of seconds. A year 1,000 laps around the sun from now will be a greater amount of seconds, so a “year” is really 1 revolution around the sun, whether it takes 100 seconds, or a trillion seconds.
Saying “year” really means 1 revolution around the sun. It is not a time, but a complete revolution.
Time is 1,000,000,000 seconds, regardless of how far around the sun the earth has made it, be it 3 revolutions or .1 revolution.
You’re asking me to represent (0.3_9), which is (\frac{1}{3}), as a percentage. That’s not possible. In other words, there is no percentage that captures that number.
So in base 9, having 1 of 3 apples means you have .3 of the apples, having 2 of 3 apples means you have .6 of the apples, and having 3 of 3 apples means you have 1.0 of the apples.
We know you agree that 1.0 of the apples is 100% of the apples in base 9.
I am asking you what percent of the apples do you have if you have 1 of 3 apples (.3) in base 9??
You agree that each apple is a percentage of the total apples, right?
If one of the twins (the traveling twin) has aged less than the other, then how can the traveling twin’s clock be inaccurate, and how can it be that the same amount of time has passed for both twins? If the same amount of time had passed for both twins, they would continue to be the same age and their clocks would continue to be synchronized by definition!
In fact, less time elapses for the traveling twin, which is why upon returning to earth he finds himself younger than the earth twin.
