Estranged

When it comes to jobs that may very well require the sacrifice of your life, all should have a choice. If someone believes in a cause, they should have the right to fight for it and sacrifice the self for it, and if they don't believe in it they should have the right to abstain. It should have nothing to do with male or female. The US draft system is sexist in the least and barbaric in truth.

A proposal: Time is actually a constant even though we may not ever be able to measure it with complete accuracy. Isn't it reasonable to believe that even with all the fancy clocks we can't really measure time as a constant? There's too many variables. Nothing is stationary. Relative station cannot be reasonably figured. We have human weaknesses. Measuring time is certainly one. The clocks on the planes going around the Earth, to think that they could account for all variables, and to think they could account for aging, seems absurd.

I'm sorry y'all, this thread was driving me crazy and it seemed healthy to just ignore it. I'll get back to it one day. I do believe that the questions I'm asking are important. This is the most interesting post I've read. I'll have to read it another 20 or so times before I can begin to understand it though.

There is nothing special about biological systems, but they're still different from mechanical systems. Biologic aging is different from mechanical clock rate. I'm not sure how you can claim that time is not a human invention. If you could describe time without being human then I'd be REALLY fascinated. OK, but what does that have to do with age?

The important point here is that time dilation is not an effect on the clock. It can't be. For example, right now you are traveling at 0 km/h relative to your chair (no time dilation) you are also travelling at hundreds of miles per hour relative to Mars (a bit of time dilation) you are also travelling at 99% of the speed of light relative to cosmic rays (a lot of time dilation). Your clock can't be running at multiple different speeds, affected by every relative velocity. OK, that's all fine, but does it have to do with human age?

The most public explaining I've tried to do is right here. This stuff has really been bothering me to the extent it interferes with my life. And it seems like no one can really answer me. I just googled "science forums" and I got here. I don't know what else to do.

Thank you. That means a lot to me actually that I'm not completely crazy! But I guess physics is kinda wrong when they try and describe time in regards to age.

First, saying "explain the difference" is much like saying "explain the sameness." Anyhow, we all seem to agree that time is relative, right? There's also been assertions that age is a measure of time and that clock rate measures time. Correct? Now, considering the relativity of time, I think it not all so absurd that age measures time differently than clock rate.

I'm sorry I didn't see your response before. So you agree that age and clock rates can have time differences. That means that it's possible that if a person travels at a very high speed away from Earth and comes back a very high speed, then their age could be just the same as someone who stayed on Earth the whole time.

OK, given that, could there not be a difference when it comes to clock rate vs aging?

Could age and clock rates have different reference frames?

Could you please elaborate? OK, so if there's not an absolute rate of time then there are different rates of time, yes? But time isn't constant, as explained, so things age in different times I guess, or by different ages.

Most of your responses are really confusing me. I'm just curious if anyone else could think of time measured by age vs a clock rate could be different? If I seem ridiculous, I'm sorry. I don't mean to.

So time passing is an absolute?