Hello to you Pasti; I will try again:
Various postings have described time as motion (seems to be logical, no motion nothing happens.) and the Universe is full of motion. Some offer that time is fixed and some make arguments suggesting that time differs dependent on the speed of movement wherein the time is measured. I suggest that time can be relative in the every day use. When they did the Einstein fly clock experiment one clock going with the Earths rotation gained a little and one clock going in retrograde rotation travel lost a little. Uncle Al offered somewhere that movement had nothing to do with clocks. Possibly correct, especially if they are based on the decay of elements. All normal clocks use a balance wheel of sorts which would equate to a pendulum which in turn has a motion dependent on gravity of location and rotation of the planet upon which it is situated. Gravity, for every day time functions is an important factor. The old hour glass with the falling sand might run slower on the Moon due to the reduced gravity slowing the rate of fall. Possibly ? as fast as on Earth. That would be true for any change of venue going faster or slower in relation to the Earth surface gravity being less or more. I think this would also apply to most normal clocks which rely on some form of the pendulum. I contend that in the real world time is relative but still only a measure created by humans to keep track of things.
Returning to my last post I want to stress that ageing, as a measure of the passing of time may be environmentally related to the location of the person being measured. No one has spent a long time on any other planet so we have no criteria to compute. If gravity provides the wear and tare on our bodies not only would we live more comfortably on a planet with less gravitation we could actually live longer for the same reason. So, what is time? To me it is a useful measure but also a variable related to location and gravitational effect.
jjw
