>>12655292I read the whole thing now. Time is what clocks measure. A second is *defined* to be some number of oscillations of some cesium atom, or of the main spectral gamma ray of the decay of that atom or something. This is the definition of what a unit of time is. He does not explain why this definition fails in his opinion and he only says that this definition by "counting cyclic activity" is not a good one.
Time dilation is an effect that describes the rate of what clocks do. His insistence that time doesn't dilate is retarded (pedantic and/or semantic?) because he never says what he thinks time dilation is if not not an effect on clocks. His insistence on not actually seeing time dilate is like he thinks time is an eyeball and we need to see the pupil in the time eye change size to actually see time dilation. He grants that the effect on clocks is real, but what he's saying about "time actually dilating" doesn't make sense because he does not identify what process he associates with time actually dilating if not the clock experiment that everyone else on Earth uses.
When he says, "Nothing involving time as a third participant," it seems to be nothing more than an identification that human exist in a hypersurface of constant proper time and do not observe the 4D universe in geometric 4D, but rather in geometric 3D complemented with motion. The motion of clocks is how we measure time: the fourth dimension.
