Speed can only be measured relative to some other object, like the speed of a tennis ball during a match at Wimbledon can only be measured relative to the ground, or a cloud, or the planet Mars. On the other hand, time is relative. An object traveling at speeds approaching the speed of light in a vacuum (c) will experience time at a different rate than those objects traveling much slower. As an object's speed approaches c, time dilates for it. After a year passes for an object traveling near c, perhaps 100 years might have passed for objects traveling at much slower speeds. But there is a contradiction here, isn't there? When you put the two statements together, you realize that everything is traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum, after all there is light traveling through space all the time. If we simply measure the speed of a light beam traveling away from Earth relative to our home planet, we realize that we are moving at the speed of light away from that light beam. If an object were to travel at near light speed along the same trajectory of that beam, then we would be traveling at near light speed relative to that object in the opposite direction. To an observer on that object, a year may have passed, while to us 100 years might have passed. And yet, to us a year may have passed, while to that observer on that object, 100 years might have passed. I'm just curious, am I missing something? Have there been any answers to this paradox?