Originally posted by Uncle Al:
Time is what an honest clock reads. If you don't like oscillators, use radioactive decay. Movement is irrelevant to the operation of a clock. Well, Al, as I'm sure you already know, clocks do run faster or slower depending upon your velocity in measurements of time intervals in relation to another object. Early tests even showed that a clock on an aircraft would run slightly faster because it is further away from the Earth's gravitational pull. Acceleration of an object also affects time relative to another object, so an astronaut moving rapidly away from Earth, say, would have time travel slower for them than those the astronaut left behind. Wouldn't you call that type of movement being relative to clocks?
This, I think, is just one aspect of Lynd's theory; that there is no independent universal time, just motion and the forces that affect that motion. He proves this to some extent by demonstrating that bodies in motion cannot have an underlying time 'instant' assigned to it. Which also means that it has no real coordinate at any given time interval; unless you force an arbitrary 'instant' upon it, as we do. It's like an addendum to Einstein's theory. Lynd is a huge fan of Einstein, after all. If you read Lynd's paper he even dismisses 'imaginary time' in respect to the theoretical 'right angle' relative to 'normal time' that predicts and records anomalous time variances, such as gravity. In this sense time does not have any, for use of a better word, 'un-normal' behaviour because it is only the sequence of events that matters, not a concept of measured time.
I hope this made some modicum of sense.
