Time is referent self-reference in physics.
(Pendulum re-traces aleged same path; forms a self-referent reference distance by which another path is "timed")
"Measurement" involves compare two patterns, and divide one into at least two with respect the other? So count off units of the undivided one in divided-one units? So involves referent-self reference; so measurement = time in physics?
"Ideal clock" would require measuring measurement to measure time? So must be "relativity" measuring? So "re-normalisation" is "ideal clock"?
Re-normalisation at rest? Is a contradiction? As re-normalisation is the definition of relative movement. "Relative movement" is "rest" or "fixed position" or "fixed frame" by definition of "relative movement"!
The word "relative" locks the two movements in a fixed frame (or they wouldn't be "relative" surely?)
Peter Lynds' work is in this area.
Well you could say "base" or "category" is re-normalisation at rest?
So a category is a "inertial reference frame": which measures local time (proper time).
"Proper time" is local inertial reference frame time. By definition "relative movement" is "fixed frame"? If ordinary time is built of non-relativities; or differences between fixed frames; only by re-normalising two proper times with a third could you get a view of "time" as differences?
Three clocks of proper time needed to measure time?
Movement along a trajectory requires self-referent reference as "directed line" requires three-ness.
This three-ness gives you three clocks when you combine concept of local clock with directed trajectory?
The concept-entanglement might prevent change in proper time being determined?
Michelson-Morley experiment may have generalised the concept of "angle" so that no matter which way you point it you get "C" the same value.
Just rushed this