_
Time is an experience… everything is a by-product of something else ad-infinitum.
What happened as time progressed is people misunderstood, or intentionally misrepresented basic measurements of distance and time.
They ignored the standards, and created their own BS. Other people flocked around them like they were some great movie star. They printed it in papers, played it on the news, brainwashed (I mean taught) people at the University, etc…
After a while, anyone who claims they are FOS is labeled an outcast! Outrageous!
It’s like the old story about telling something to somebody, which in turn tells it to someone else, and they tell it to someone else. In the end, the story is nothing like it was originally told.
Dare you be the one to claim the last person’s tale was BS, that’s not how it was originally told. You’d be labeled a witch and burned at the stake! LOL
I mean that you can’t switch arbitrarily from one frame of reference to another. The measured time and distance depends on fast you are moving. The planet looks 3 light years away at 0.99c.
So how do you account for the experimental results?
Looks has nothing to do with it.
The distance was measured with light, which is the same as clocks and rulers. If you took meter sticks and measured it, it would be 299,792,458 x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365.25 x 42 meters round trip. That is the distance roundtrip, measured with rulers.
The time it takes light to make the trip is 42 years, as measured by the stay at home clock, which is the standard duration of time, when speaking of “light years.”
Frame of reference is BS! It has nothing to do with the actual measured distance, and actual measured time for light to make the trip.
This is not perception, or illusion, or “how you see it,” it is MEASURED STANDARDS, AS DEFINED! The speed of light is DEFINED, and creates a standard Meter, based on the standard second.
Your claimed speed of “.99c” at the beginning of the trip is putting the cart before the horse. The speed of your trip, according to your watch was 7c, not .99c.
…my summation of existence itself.
Using your method of measuring distance and time, you mean? If they calculate distance and time like you do, in their results, then their results are BS, like yours are!
Your BS results match a BS theory perfectly! LOL
No.
How do YOU, with YOUR method of measurement, account for the experimental results?
This for example:
Again, changing clock rates are not keeping accurate time, whether it’s atomic clocks or a $1 digital clock you buy at the Dollar store. If the clock disagrees with the speed of light it is absolutely wrong.
Time is not what a clock reads. Clocks can change rates. If a clock changes rate it did not keep accurate time.
Having two synchronized atomic clocks on Earth, that are known to keep accurate time, and sending one on a trip and checking it’s time when it returns is a test of how accurate the clock keeps time if sent on a trip.
If the traveling clock reads anything different than the stay at home accurate clock, then the clock that went on a trip did not keep accurate time.
The ONLY way for that traveling clock to go out of synch with the stay at home clock is for it to have changed rate. If it changed rate it did not keep accurate time. Period!
And according to you, why did the clocks on the airplanes not keep accurate time?
We have their explanation : relativistic effects of velocity and gravity. What’s yours?
…the result of a constant redefining of an original definition borne from a thought?
You have to have 1 standard of distance, and 1 standard of time, otherwise anyone can make up their own BS and claim they are correct.
They are entitled to make their own standard of time, but they are not entitled to call that different standard the same thing as the set standard. They are not entitled to call their standard of time a second, because a second is already defined.
Likewise, they can not look at what I call a horse, and claim that is a pig. Outrageous!
Nobody would know what anyone was talking about if they all just called horses and pigs cows and chickens!
It’s a moot point of WHY they didn’t keep accurate time, the point is that they DIDN’T keep accurate time.
If a clock doesn’t keep accurate time when it travels at a high rate of speed, then find a different device that DOES keep accurate time.
Light speed is CONSTANT in space. Light travels a specific distance in a specific duration of time. If light travels 299,792,458 meter sticks, that is 1 second of duration of time.
Moot???
That’s the part that you are investigating. That’s the science part. 
There is no such device. They are all equally “inaccurate”. 
No, A clock is used to keep accurate time. You can’t claim an inaccurate clock is correct just because that is your clock and that is what it reads.
Go get a cheap clock and set it to the standard Eastern Time, and then come back when your cat dies. Is the clock still ticking? Is it still reading Eastern Time? No? Then according to you, it’s your clock, and it’s accurate because that is what it reads. You see how silly that argument is? That is the exact same argument you are making when you claim your clock that reads 6 years to travel a 42 light year journey.
Your clock DID NOT keep accurate time. Deal with it!
Again, if light travels 299,792,458 meter sticks, that is 1 second.
I really do not see how you can be so dense. I begin to suspect your entire posting career has been performative, i.e., trolling.
I’ve already explained where you err with your “clock that reads 6 years to travel a 42 light year journey.” Deal with it! 
I see where phyllo posted, but I don’t see what you said. Post the quote!
I’ve already discussed these relativistic scenarios repeatedly. I can’t believe you can be so dense as to not follow the explanations, which is why I have to think you are deliberately distorting them.
There is NOTHING in relativity theory that holds an observer on a spaceship traveling toward a star measured to be 42 light years from the earth frame will claim that he traversed 42 light years in six years. Relativity theory does not say that AT ALL. That you impute such idiocy to the theory indicates either density or duplicity on your part.
Are you a sockpuppet of phyllo?
POST THE QUOTE!
I don’t need to post any quote, I will just restate it for you now.
Your claim that relativity theory says a traveler will measure a trip to a star 42 light years distant to take six years by his ship clock is WRONG. I’ve already explained, several times, WHY it is wrong. Here is the explanation again:
The star is measured to be 42 light years distant FROM THE EARTH FRAME. It is NOT measured to be 42 lights years distant FROM THE SHIP FRAME. Capice?
Time dilation — slowing of clocks — also entails LORENTZ LENGHT CONTRACTION, in the direction of the ship’s forward motion, as I have explained. The star is MUCH CLOSER in the ship frame, than it is in the earth rest frame — so close, as measured by the ship’s pilot, that it is only somewhat over six light years distant (assuming the ship is traveling very close to c).
In fact, length contraction is WHY less time elapses on the ship’s clock, than on the earth clock — the traveler has much less distance to travel as judged from the earth, and therefore it will take him less time to make the trip!
The upshot is that the clock measurement on the ship will ALWAYS SHOW that the ship is traveling at a SUBLUMINAL VELOCITY, and NEVER “42 lights years in six years,” LOL!
Next you are probably going to say, duh, BUT, BUT, the star really IS 42 light years away, blah blah blah, because it is measured to be such from earth. WRONG! Time and space are RELATIVE. The earth is NOT an absolute rest frame! Distance and simultaneity are relative concepts tied to reference frames, with no frame-independent fact of the matter about either.
Deal with it!