I can just imagine the new advert for Rolex... "Our latest watch may not be perfect, it may not even be accurate - but rest assured it will measure absolute time... absolutely." -Rolex or perhaps... "Why be late... when you can be absolutely late?" -(In)Accurist
Have you heard of relativity at all? Time dilation? Your simplistic 'suggestions' would have us using a sundial again.
And - for a (relatively) fast observer - the Eath's circumference is smaller than it is as seen from Earth. Thus that light has a shorter distance to travel and therefore takes less time. Which means that there will still be two "answers".
That does not make a clock. To a traveler in a fast-moving spaceship, the Earth takes longer to go around the sun that to a person on Earth. There is no such thing. Clocks measure time very well at any speed. The clock on the spaceship will measure one hour of time passed on the ship for every hour passed. The clock on Earth will measure one hour of time passed on Earth for every hour passed. But the two will disagree. As they should.
You are operating under the misconception that time dilation is caused by some outside influence that causes "moving" clocks to behave abnormally. This simply isn't what is happening according to either Relativity or countless experiments that have been done over the last 100 years or so. It doesn't matter how much you want to cling to the idea of absolute time, it is an obsolete model that has no place in our understanding of the universe and how it operates. So you have a choice. You can either cling to an outmoded and abandoned concept and thus remain out of the loop in terms of actual understanding, or you can try to learn about the model that has usurped it and expand upon your understanding.
That is a much less-worse name. (As other have already pointed out: you seem to have skipped the discussion of the theory of relativity when positing your ideal clock idea. I'd also like a response to that.)
For Albert Einstein we don't perceive things, but the light they reflect. Einstein interprets reality as a mirage.
Einstein was a scientist - and although his thoughts were deep and often hard to understand, they were always based upon scientific reasoning. Your latest statement is simply 'word salad' and has no bearing on the discussion at all. P.S: We can perceive things in other ways than light - do you think blind people perceive nothing around them?
Like everything else you have written in this thread that is wrong. If you look at a light bulb in a room you are 'seeing' photons coming directly from a heated filament. Everything else that you see in the room is a 'reflection' or more accurately you are seeing photons that are emitted from the object. And once again you are wrong. I think you have been wrong on every single point in this thread. Congratulations you got a 100%!
This is only true in your own frame of reference. If a space ship was flying at 1 mph slower than c and it turned on the head lights, as a stationary (relative to the space ship) observer you would see the light move at only 1 mph faster than the space ship. For people on the space ship the head light would be moving at about 670,000,000 mph faster than the space ship. This occurs because neither d or t are constant when viewed from a different reference frame.
Another misconception on your part; that Relativity relies on what we visually see by light. If I am watching a clock coming at me at 0.8 c, I will see its clock ticking 3 times faster than my own clock, if it is receding, I will see it ticking 1/3 as fast. But I also know that the light coming from each of these clocks takes time to reach me and that time changes as the distance between the clocks and I decreases or increases. If I account for that, I will determine that both clocks are ticking 0.6 times as fast as my own. Relativity doe not live or die by light. In fact, it doesn't even require light. Relativity is based on the existence of the invariant and finite speed c. It is a speed that everyone measures as being constant relative to themselves. If I measure something to be moving at c relative to me, and there is someone else moving relative to me at 1/2 c, they will also measure that object as moving at c relative to themselves. Newtonian physics also had an invariant speed, but for it, that speed was infinite. We use light isn discussions and examples dealing with Relativity because it conveniently is both something we can detect and measure and also happens to travel at c. light traveling at c is a symptom of Relativity not an underlying cause. You really need to learn the theory you are trying to dispute. The type of blanket statements you are now making just reveals that you are uninformed on the subject.
You have a quote regarding time in your signature: "The Philochrony (from Greek philo: friend and khronos: time) is the science that describes the nature of time and helps us to visualize it. The Philochrony is based in the becoming-duration duality and on the philochron classification of things. The Philochrony is independent of any believe, dogma or organization of knowledge." And I think it is quite telling in regards to your post - you believe you know better than the current 'dogma' of knowledge that we currently have - your opinions are interesting but naive - if you wish to dismiss our current understanding of 'time' you should first familiarise yourself with the current theories and experiments that have already taken place. There are folks in this thread with a far better understanding than you or I regarding your original post - and you would do well to at least listen to the basic lessons they wish to teach you, before you dismiss them out of hand as 'dogma' - especially when your own ideas of time and 'the perfect clock' have been proven to be erroneous... time... and time, again.
OK Origin and Janus58. In the case of twins' paradox, the one who traveled at high speed most get older faster when returning to the Earth and dies with his brother.
