i really didn't have much to add or comment upon with respect to your recent posts since your
return from Russia. there was a posting by Bud Bock with respect to your paper that i felt
inclined to comment upon since i have read the first chapter of your paper in depth. he asked how can anything be "independent" of time? here is a link for those postings:
i would not suppose that you deny relativity regardless of what other posters may imply.
i find your definition of time most interesting.
** "Time is a concept which divides the universe into two realms: the past (which constitutes what we know) and the future (which constitutes what we do not know)." **
i like how it ties in with the ideas in your paper about what is knowable data and what is unknowable data.
i really can't see why people would construe that this definition makes you a proponent of
absolute time. well, i suppose that the past 'knowable realm of the universe' could be construed as absolute but not so the other component of time the future 'unknown realm of the universe'.
i'm glad that you described how "as aware individuals, we see the universe as if it were
describable in terms of a parameter which identifies our personal transition from not knowing something to knowing that thing (the present) and we refer to that parameter (which does nothing except order our gain in knowledge of the universe) as "time"". i had wondered how you viewed the present as i had not found referance to it in the first chapter of your paper.
i'm still pondering your statement about "clocks not measuring time". i've only skim read the
rest of your paper. i still haven't a firm grasp on the concepts of proper time and tau. but it
does seem reasonable that it would be difficult to measure anything that is not absolute. but i
wonder how does this all relate to the way we measure mass and length? would those standards be just as arbitrary as how it is commonly thought of when we say we measure time with clocks?
i'll not comment for now on your discourse about relativity, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and
Maupertuis. but it was interesting. i'd not heard of Maupertuis before.
shortly i shall post an interesting experience that i had which i believe illustrates at least
some of the ideas you wrote about in your paper.