Strange

Because, once you have defined a second, you can use it to measure things. That is the whole point of defining a unit of time. There is nothing special about the length of time we call a second. Any more than the inch or the cm used for distance. It is just a convenient unit. Science doesn't "make things up". It observes and tests things. (Note: it is the latter of those two that you omit to do.) The age of the universe is calculated from various sources of data. If we can use seconds to work out how long a day and a year are (and that is the way it is done now) and we can use the year to work out how old you are, then why shouldn't we also use the same units to figure the age of the Earth and even the universe.

You can't even get your own maths right. At 1,000 MPH, 1 second is equivalent to 0.277777778 miles. Note they are not equal. That is like saying 1 apple is equal to 0.28 oranges.

Yes, but it was NOT defined in terms of velocity and distance because the velocity and distance were not known. Your assuming that something we know now is significant. It is like insisting that a horse is an animal with iron feet even though we know that wild horses don't wear hooves. The second (a unit of time) was defined in terms of the day (a unit of time). It is now defined in terms of blah blah cesium blah (a unit of time). It is not equal to some fraction of a mile (a unit of length) although you can make an arbitrary connection to an equivalent distance. But there are an infinite number of ways of doing that. For example, you could consider how far the Sun moves round the galaxy, or how far my dog can run in one second. These also give you distances related to 1 second. BUT THEY ARE ALL EQUALLY MEANINGLESS.

Exactly! There is no fixed relation between distance and time. The second is simply a division of a longer time. No. It wasn't based on distance and velocity. The distance and velocity were not known at the time. It was purely defined by subdivisions of 24 hours. (Actually, I suspect by subdividing 12 hours but I can't be bothered to check.)

Only if the defined a second in the same way that we used to. But what of there were 17 hours in their day, each divided in 4 quonks, further divided into 321 fribbles. Then how long is our fribble? Phew. I thought you said "viscosity" there for a moment!

It is the same as a "clock second" because clocks are designed to use the new definition of the second. It is not the same as the old second. And, as such, it is not a distance and it is not even equivalent to a fixed distance.

I probably agree with you. I think Penrose is looking for a "magic" explanation of consciousness. I just don't see any point in bringing a loony old dead fraud into it.

It might be, it depends how fast it rotates. And what latitude you are at. But now you are making up things that aren't true ("Earth at a set velocity") in order to defend something which is wrong. That is what we call "intellectual dishonesty". Just admit it: you were and are wrong about this.

It varies. Because the second is now fixed but the rotation of the Earth changes.

C2 is not a density.

Even if that were true, it was fixed when the second was redefined so that it is no longer based on distance.

But what if we and the alien agree that we won't measure time using distance (which, as others have explained, is a silly way to do it). We might both agree to use the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom (just to pick a random example). Then we would both agree on the length of the second. Then we could compare how long her day and year was compared to ours. Not all of it. Where do you think the stars get their energy from?

Having been round (and round and round) this argument in the past, I am convinced that relative is not trying to distract from the point; he genuinely cannot understand it. And by that I mean incapable of understanding (not just that it hasn't been explained in the right way, or he hasn't "got it" yet), which is why this will go nowhere ...

He also said this was all caused by imprisoned souls from an intergalactic war (or some such tosh). Mediocre SF writer, crap pop-psychologist, good at inventing religions.

Sorry. I didn't intend to come across as mean ...

Disagreement because you choose to ignore all the theory, math and evidence; preferring to make up random stuff.

You totally miss the point. Again. No one was saying they were not credible because they had no reputation (which would the inverse of appeal to authority) but that they had nothing much to lose by commenting on this stuff. He has been banging on about this for decades. You would think that is time enough, Ignoring the fact he stole the idea when he was working in the patent office (allegedly). Anyway, you can't patent a scientific theory, only an invention based on it.

Dunning-Kruger effect It is a bizarre variation on the gambler's fallacy.

No. There are mathematically correct solutions to Einstein's Field Equations, for example, that do not correspond to reality. That is why science relies on quantitative testing of the predictions made by the math. (And as noted by others, your math is "not even wrong" because it fails basic dimensional analysis.) And yet it works.

I have never understood this aversion to text books. They are, generally, full of reliable (tested) information and are structured to allow one to learn about a subject. It seems that some people prefer unfettered imagination to reality.

That's it. When they get together again and compare results, they will find a correlation. But the correlation cannot be explained in the classical way.

Correct. So what? That doesn't mean that time doesn't exist.

That implies one of the watches is broken. How is that relevant? Groan. Not this again. Then how did the universe come to be, before we were there to perceive it?

Absolutely, you can describe it properties and behaviour, etc. But that does not say what it "is"; and there seem to be people, like member Kramer, who want to know what an electron or mass or energy "is." And there is no reasonable answer to that.