In modern physics, or at least its non-mathematical version for laymen, we hear of time's "going slower" or "faster." In the rocket experiment for the Twin Paradox, for example, time "went slower" for the traveling twin than it did for the stationary.
But the result of that experiment, so far as I could tell, could also be described as "fewer events occurring" (because at lower frequency) for the traveling twin (while time went at the same speed for both twins). For example, a quark in the traveling twin shook (I don't know if quarks shake or jump) only 100 times while the corresponding quark in the stationary twin shook 1,000.
Which of the following is true?
(a) could speak either way, but chose the terminology of time's variable speed for mere convenience.
(b) must stick to time's variable speed because some types of results (not included in the rocket experiment) support it and not variable frequency of events.
I am adding this bit in response to the "hold" notice, which states that "it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking."
Please see if the question becomes more intelligible as read in conjunction with Andrew Steane's comments, which I replicate here:
The term 'time dilation' is indeed sometimes confusing or misconstrued. The bottom line is that, between separating and meeting again, the rocket twin has fewer heart beats, fewer wristwatch ticks, fewer caesium atom oscillations, fewer cell divisions, etc. etc., and all by the same factor compared to the other twin. You can call it what you like, but it is not a conspiracy.
Those comments answer the question to my satisfaction, and therefore I do not need more answers. I only add this bit for the benefit of those who might care to understand the question.
To characterize the question somewhat differently, it asks whether, having said 'fewer heart beats' etc. (in the sense above), i.e. having made certain statements about events, you need to make an additional statement about time (e.g. its 'dilating') to complete the description of the test results.
Suppose the answer is no, i.e. that you need not make any additional statement about time to describe the results of the experiments. Then you really need to examine the facile (not to say fanciful) idea that these experiments are telling you anything about the nature of time. On this page alone, you will find the tendency to think that a statement about time is a mere equivalent to a statement about events. That may turn out to be true, but would not be trivially true, and probably would not come out true or false as a result of these experiments. In other words, the question goes to what these experiments are about (as well as what not).