I brought this up top. A link to your note is in this reply.
My point of contention with Dr. Dick's paper, unlike that of others, does not dispute his
physics arguments. I was interested in exploring
the topic he raised. However, he is not a good
conversationalist with me...not even close.
If I cannot do the math right now, there is no step two with him unless one has some secret "in" as anonymous Harv had.
The "when" observation you mentioned is interesting. I will consider it further.
Yet my point in other posts, some of which were apparently removed, was that "absolute time" can be a time parameter whose "absoluteness" is drawn from its RELATION to the matter in question.
As you "reminded" me at http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/28748.shtml:
"consider one of the principles upon which
relativity is founded. the one that states
that the speed of light in free space has
the same value for all observers,
regardless of their state of motion.
But what if we are not talking about "observers" but other contexts? (If I explain this badly this time, it is partly because when I strove to explain it well, it disappeared from the archives. What's up with that? )
Time as we measure it has been based upon Earth and Sun...then it went to a counting of atomic decay rate as its pace-keeper. We assume, perhaps rightly, that atomic decay is a properly universal standard.
When the famous time old astronaut travel model is told, wherein someone travelling at near light speed does not age nearly as much as his people back on Earth during 40 years
it depends on an idea that less decay of the man's atomic integrity occurs. This points to the atomic decay as the gold standard which determines light's properties.
In fact, we should call THAT a form of absolute time.
However, since our experience is limited, what if
atomic decay is variable based upon something
we will not discover for a long time? 1) Yes, we may dispense with that mystery for now. 2) The possibility illustrates that absolute time is relative -- it is a baseline parameter subject to further discoveries. Thanks