Right, I count the times the Earth has orbited the Sun, and every time it completes another lap I add 1 more year to my age on my birthday.
I definitely do not count wrinkles to verify my age, I look at my birth certificate and compare the year to the calendar and do the math. The math works perfect every time I try it. I never even have to consider how many wrinkles I have, can you believe it??
If you don’t like the outcome - change the way you’re doing it - get your move - on. 
The sky is blue and the grass is green. That’s an example of difference. But that’s not change. What follows from that, I think both of us will agree, is that not every difference is change. Thus, change is a type of difference. But what kind of difference? Change is difference through time. To say that something changed is to say that the state it existed in at some previous point in time is different from the state it exists at present.
How long it took for some process to complete is an instance of duration. Although the word “time” can be, and often is, used to refer to the same thing – that which we uniquely identify with the word “duration” – it also refers to something else. Time is also used to mean “space” within which things that have duration exist.
I still don’t know whether you think that time is a type of description or not. In other words, I still don’t know whether you think that “5 minutes” written down on a piece of paper in order to describe how long it took someone to do something is an instance of time. Is time something we measure or is it a result of measurement?
I would say that length, like time, exists whether or not we can measure it. Obviously, that implies that length and time are things that we measure and not the results of our measurements. And that’s what English language seems to reflect. You measure time. You measure length. You measure height. You measure strength. You measure intelligence. All of these are objects of measurement. They are not results.
That’s a figurative use of the word. Your skin didn’t change. Rather, it is your perception that changed. At an earlier point in time, before you saw your fingernail, your opinion was that your skin at that particular place (where our fingernails rest) is soft. At a later point in time, when you saw your fingernail, your opinion changed to “It is hard”.
Is that how pood used the word? If so, then the answer is no. But in that case, I have no idea why he’s asking me that question. Seems rather irrelevant.
The ppoint I was making is that clocks have a regular output. They do not move slower within their own timeframe.
When time dilation occurs time is different in that the faster you go, the slower you age from the perspective of the earth, but clocks do not slow down. THey always move at the rate of the time frame.
Not if you are travelling in a space ship going 99% of the speed of light.
You you are the one that is confused.
If you don’t like the universe you are living in , then I suggest you run along and find another one to your own liking.
You look like you don’t beling here.
Traveling 99% of the speed of light for 1 Year means that you traveled the distance of .99 light years per 1 orbit of Earth around the Sun.
If you traveled 99% the speed of light for 10 orbits of Earth around the Sun then you traveled a distance of 9.9 light years, which is 299,792,458 x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365.25 x 9.9 meter sticks, laid end to end.
Travel at 99% the speed of light for 1 Second and you traveled the distance of 299,792,458 x .99 = 296,794,533.42 meter sticks laid end to end.
The speed of light is defined by the constancy of light travel time. The meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.
If you traveled at .99 the speed of light for 1 Second, you NECESSARILY traveled a distance of 296,794,533.42 Meter sticks laid end to end! BY DEFINITION!
Throw your broken clock away, it’s garbage!
The point is… which has not yet been fully ascertained or properly addressed, is… why is the travelling twin’s clock clocking up 6 years, when 40,000 Earth years have passed?
So Pood is saying that time is relative to speed, so say… by the time light from a distant star reaches us it is already dead. But… if we were to instantaneously warp-speed to that star, it would be dead… because we haven’t travelled backwards or forwards in time but through space.
A light year is a distance (6Tmiles / 9.7Tkm), which would still take 1 year to cover that distance… unless wormholes were a thing, which would then reduce the distance to travel and time required, in-order to reach the destination.
Because it changes the rate at which it “clocks up” time. The problem is that if it DOESN’T “clock up” 40,000 Years when 40,000 laps of Earth around the Sun have occurred, then it isn’t “clocking up” YEARS, it is “clocking up” a different unit of time.
If the spaceship watch “clocked up” 1 unit of time when 100 laps of Earth around the Sun occurred, then the unit of time it “clocked up” was “Century.” The spaceship clock clocked up 1 Century, and the Earth clock clocked up 100 Years.
The word “year” is historically defined to mean “the amount of time it takes the Earth to orbit around the Sun”. So if he [Motor Daddy] is going to express his age in terms of years, then yes, he has to do it in terms of how many times the Earth has orbited around the Sun. So when you say that the stay-at-home twin has aged 40,000 years and the travelling twin only 6 years, you are either saying that the number of times the Earth has orbited around hte Sun is different for the two twins or you are using the word “year” in two different ways (one standard and one non-standard) without notifying anyone.
If we were to send an astronaut to an object one light year distant, we would have two frames (points of view) — the frame of the earth, and the frame of the astronaut.
Look at it from the frame (point of view) of the earth. Since we already know that no object can be accelerated to light speed, then no one on earth would ever say that the astronaut traveled to an object one light year distant, in one year. That would mean the astronaut would have to travel exactly at light speed, and that is impossible.
But we can, in principle, accelerate an object — in this case, a spaceship with an astronaut in it — arbitrarily close to the speed of light. Let’s say that in this case, the astronaut is traveling so fast that the earth frame determines that the astronaut reaches the object one light year distant in 1.1 years.
The point, however, is that there are TWO frames — the earth frame, and the astronaut’s frame — and relativity theory shows they will not, and cannot, agree on how long it takes to get to the star. Both frames, however, will measure the velocity of light to be exactly the same.
In this case — and the numbers could be worked out mathematically precisely, but I’m just going to guesstimate to save time — if observers in the earth frame say it takes the astronaut 1.1 years to reach the star, the astronaut will say, as measured in his frame (by his clock) that the journey takes maybe a week or two.
This does not, however, mean that the astronaut is traveling faster than the speed of light. The reason that he sees his journey taking only a week or two is because the distance to the star in his frame is length-contracted by a factor which, combined with his clock reading, keeps the speed of light exactly constant, at velocity c.
The reason that less time passes for the astronaut, as measured in his frame, than from the frame of the earth, is because the distance he travels is MUCH SHORTER, than the distance measured from the earth.
As the astronaut approaches light speed and gets very, very close it, the time it takes from him to reach his destination, as measured by his clock, asymptotically approaches zero, because the distance to the star asymptotically approaches zero.
What I am saying above has been repeatedly experimentally verified and is standard, ho-hum science. See here, for example.
Yes. And instead of saying “The spaceship clock clocked up 1 Century, and the Earth clock clocked up 100 Years” they are saying “The spaceship clock clocked up 1 Year, and the Earth clock clocked up 100 Years”. Instead of saying “Century”, they are saying “Year”.
A light year is light traveling 299,792,458 x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365.25 meter sticks laid end to end in the duration of 1 orbit of the Earth around the Sun. PERIOD!
If you claim to have traveled that many meter sticks in a week, then you are traveling 52 times the speed of light! PERIOD!
It takes light 52 weeks to travel that distance, but you claim it takes you 1 week to make the trip, so you MUST be traveling 52c!
Your post is nothing but SOUP SANDWICH! It has so many inaccuracies it would take me all day to respond to all of them!
Yup.
I really like your posts, keep it up! 
It appears to me that it’s not about a different unit of Earthly time (because that has already been ascertained, as we know), but regarding there then being an altogether different Universal law of the concept of time as we know it. The prospect of this being the case is nothing new.
The quicker a destination is arrived at, the less time is spent travelling… yes, travelling at the speed of light will get you there ultra-fast in less amount of time… regardless of what the unit of time is/is called. What’s in a name but another concept.
The speed of light can be:
1 light year/1 year
10 light years/10 years
100 light years/100 years
10 light years/1 Decade
100 light years/1 Century
299,792,458 Meters/1 second
1 Meter/1/299,792,458 of a Second
They are all the speed of light, which is denoted as “c.”
So where does the dilemma lay? in the wrong assumption that a solar year is being misinterpreted as a light year by some, or in that the properties of the speed of light might be different in relation to that of other quantifiable speeds…?
There really is no dilemma, just a Fudge Factor created by Einstein, because he didn’t know how to keep the speed of light constant to make his 2nd postulate in his theory correct.
I’ve said it many times before, and I proved it with my MD’s Box example, the speed of light is not measured to be c in all inertial frames, which means Einstein’s 2nd postulate is BUNK!
The speed of light in space is c. The speed of light in the box, which has an absolute velocity of .638971c in space, is measured to be different than c, depending on the direction measured.
The real problem is that Einstein’s BS stands, and the truth is BURIED in order to protect his theory!
I’d like to see a debate between you and phyllo (or pood) on this subject. I have a feeling they agree with the popular opinion. I’m pretty sure you’re up for it, so the question is merely whether phyllo is up for it? Or perhaps pood?
Personally, I do agree with you but for different reasons. As soon as we say that ALL rooms are occupied, there are no longer any unoccupied rooms. Thus, no room for any new guests. The number of rooms is completely irrelevant. All of that is simply due to the definition of the word “all”. The word “all” means “every single thing within a set of things”. The size of the set is irrelevant. So yeah, I agree with you that it’s false but for different reasons. And I also disagree with you when it comes to what the word “infinity” stands for and whether or not it is theoretically possible.
Like I said, it’s just “word play” that’s a bunch of nonsense.
Infinity is the concept of continuation. An example of infinity is 1+1+1+1… There is no limit, and there is no number you can say is the sum, it just continues “infinitely.”
The same with the distance you point in any direction. That line in space is “infinite” because it continues, non stop. There is no end to that line in space. That line is “infinite.”