thank you for your reply,

still, lost here, confused in need of further study of these issues.

forgive a furtive stab in the dark here and a small quote:
"And, yes, "the measurement of time becomes more complex in accelerated frames"; however, the path length followed by your "clock" is a truly trivial thing to measure in that same accelerated frame. It is always exactly proportional to the reading on the clock. Doesn't that seem just a little strange to you?"

i followed your link and skimmed through your paper (sorry you know i got "time" issues to deal with, that is why i'm a layman) i promise further rereading and more pondering of your papers.

does this proportionality issue seem strange? it calls to mind what you were saying about Newton's treatment of gravity as a proportional force and how Einstein was able to treat it in terms of geometry (non-euclidian) and space-time. it seems you are saying a proportionality relationship exists in general relativity with respect to the measuring of time with clocks. the implication being that what is being measured by clocks is a "pseudo" time which i'm further assuming could be better addressed by your treatment of the issue. this would resolve pseudo time into time (although not absolute time, which seems a bit parodoxical) through apparently a more "learned" use of good old euclidian geometry in the final analysis.

additionally there are other "pseudo" parallels,
ie. a given particle has rest mass, it can also have relativistic mass, a given particle has some size shape parameters with in the scope of probability, then from a relativistic sense the size shape can be "apparently" affected.
with respect to quantum mechanics we can have either live or dead cat in a box when we look but before we look the cat is live/dead.

see how lost i am? but have patience i may come to an understanding with "time".

regards tim