Understanding Spiritual Integrity

Spiritual integrity is our compass in a wavering world, guiding beliefs and actions towards authentic truth.

Integrity, as a concept, has been viewed through various lenses. One can discuss social integrity, aligning individual actions with societal norms and values. But, spiritual integrity aligns one’s beliefs, thoughts, and actions with truth and authenticity, enabling discernment between genuine facts and societal constructs or fallacies. Universal Principle’s primary focus lies firmly with spiritual integrity, even if that means, at times, diverging from the prevailing social norms.

The Interplay of Spiritual and Social Integrity

While spiritual integrity is linked with social integrity, the nuances separating them are essential. The customs, values, and beliefs lack depth and authenticity in a society steeped in low spiritual integrity. People virtue signaling values they never intend to uphold is plausibly the most significant factor in societal breakdown and poverty. It erodes trust, misallocates resources, obscures genuine opportunities, and breeds cynicism. It becomes a toxin.

Introduce a being of high spiritual integrity, we’ll call him Joe, into such a setting, and friction arises. Joe, anchored in truth, will discern the discrepancies and incongruities inherent in society’s values. This isn’t about being judgmental; it’s about recognizing that the prevailing societal ethics might not meet the rigorous standards set by spiritual integrity.

In the movie Idiocracy, a scenario occurs where a large firm convinces society to water plants with the electrolyte-containing beverage Brawndo because “it’s what plants crave!” Which causes the plants to die. The movie portrays low IQ as the culprit, but low integrity is the bigger problem.

Both society and Joe claim to care what plants crave. However, these problems are caused by society not legitimately caring about what they presuppose to claim, like what plants crave. Everyone chanting the slogan “It’s what plants crave” doesn’t care that they do not understand what plants crave, yet they enthusiastically claim to. Essentially, “I care about what plants crave” is a lie that they tell others that they may believe themselves. They lack integrity.

Joe now has a choice. Societal norms may demand certain behaviors that are out of line with his understanding of society’s needs, not Joe’s values. The identical projected value system generates two versions of the facts because one adheres to the system with integrity, and the other does not.

It’s here that Joe—and anyone practicing spiritual integrity—must strike a balance. Engaging in this self-work, one will see areas where societal or cultural norms diverge from genuine integrity. While it’s essential to adapt and coexist harmoniously within society, it’s equally crucial to maintain one’s core of truth. Bend, but don’t break.

When Joe faces the dilemma of confronting these misguided societal norms—which might bring repercussions—or allowing the plants (and society) to perish, he’s in a bind. Both paths carry significant consequences. Convenient access to spiritual truth is handy in those situations.

Navigating Reality with Spiritual Integrity

Spiritual integrity is the compass guiding you through the philosophical musing, “I think, therefore I am.” It’s the innate ability to discern truth from fallacy. Something is real in this universe because you’re observing this sentence with it. Actual observing is at the spiritual level; the body and brain are simply tools.

Consider the Romans in AD 180. They had fragments of mathematical wisdom—whole numbers, fractions, and even Pi. When the number line concept emerged, it wasn’t merely another mathematical idea. People almost universally recognized and accepted it because, at a deeper level, they were connecting with a spiritual truth. This wasn’t just about numbers—it was about the fundamental nature of existence mirrored in the pure logic of mathematics.

The spirit knows if the desires of body override clarity of mind. Our minds are susceptible to being swayed by societal constructs and biases; spiritual integrity serves as an anchor, cutting through the illusion. The trick is staying connected to it.

The Power of Self-Reflection

I regularly practice meditation and encourage others to embrace its benefits. Distancing oneself from societal judgment fosters deeper self-honesty. Within the sanctuary of meditation, reflecting on your day-to-day intentions becomes a clarifying and grounding exercise.

True spiritual integrity necessitates regular self-reflection. When we’re transparent with ourselves, we fortify our defenses against delusions, clarify what it means to reason and use critical thinking. We sharpen our sensitivity to the world’s inconsistencies by acknowledging our own occasional deviations from truth.

Daily dedication to deciphering your own self-illusions results in heightened intuition regarding mistruths others speak. An uncanny ability to know when someone is lying and what they are thinking can be obtained over time using this simple process. In many cases, an elevated clarity of the social context can indicate what may happen before it happens.


We’ve talked about how spiritual integrity differs from just following society’s rules, how it helps us see things clearly, and the deep understanding it brings when we look inside ourselves. This isn’t just a personal journey; we can all benefit from it. When we work on being true to ourselves, we make our own lives better and help others around us. Let’s commit to practicing spiritual integrity daily, challenging ourselves to be genuine, and inspiring others to do the same. Let’s make the world a more authentic place together.

Stay present.

Edward Dowdye Lives On

Professor Edward Dowdye (RIP) is massively underappreciated in physics, he had transformative observations that have yet to be officially recognized.

Professor Edward Dowdye (RIP) is massively underappreciated in physics, and it isn’t because he’s black. It’s because he dared to know better than Einstein and the official orthodoxy. He has transformative work that has yet to be officially recognized.

It’s obvious why this is. Because “disclosure” isn’t over yet. The public wasn’t given access to the truth; thus, Dowdye had to disappear.

Dowdye, you have been such an inspiration that it’s like I can feel you tapping on my shoulder, nagging on me. Thank you so much, no-wherever you are! The truth is leaking. And you remain a persistent positive force in that direction. Many have taken notice and are privately inspired by you despite deliberate attempts of concealment. Respect!

Fact: Proponents of General Relativity have no explanation for what appears to be visual confirmation that gravity does not effect light. Dowdye gives us what may be the most important visual of the 21st century: The absence of gravitational lensing where it is expected.

The white graphic animations are where General Relativity predicts the light to be observed from. The photography proves different.

Dowdye, you will live on forever in the hearts that you touched.

Stay present.

See the Light

I reinterpret light as a non-local phenomenon rather than a photon traveling at speed.

The observational evidence does not lie. The time for an electromagnetic (EM) wave to arrive at some other object is:

T=Dk (Time = Distance * [some normally constant factor] )

T=Dk has been experimentally shown to apply universally independent to any observer. It’s simply a reformulation of Maxwell’s equations, solving for the time it takes for EM induction to complete. Some describe this as “the speed of light is constant.” However, that interpretation is critically wrong.

In 1887, the Michelson-Morley Experiment provided strong evidence that the rate of EM induction remained constant, regardless of the Earth’s motion through the galaxy. Today it is accepted as a fact that the rate is constant.

T=Dk, derived from the above fact, means the duration it takes for a “photon” leaving object A to hit object B is purely based on their distance, regardless of their relative velocity to anything else in the universe. It applies independently to any observer. It’s a universal principle if you will.

What is our ultimate question?

If Bob thinks objects A and B are rapidly approaching, he views the photon as crossing a further distance. If Bob thinks he’s quickly approaching them, he considers the photon traveling a shorter length.

A photon will travel from object A to object B in 1 second when the objects are stationary, but when they are going 90% “the speed of light” in the direction of B, it still only takes 1 second because A and B are still at the same distance from each other. The photon has to cross a much further “distance” in the second scenario.

Our ultimate question is: How can a photon cross a distance in one second and then %190 of that distance, also in 1 second, without changing “speed,” or dilating time?

I have proven that time cannot dilate (here, and follow up here.) Unfortunately, Einstein didn’t understand the discipline of analytics very well. Nor do those who now reframe observations of the constant speed of light as “confirmations of Einstein’s theory.”

Einstein’s time dilation isn’t a theory but an invalid interpretation of the evidence. Mathematically, “dilating” the time dimension makes the equations come out, but dilating time has no physical meaning. There are analytical rules about what the data can mean as information. People should learn those rules.

The answer to the ultimate question is simple. There is no photon.

No object at speed can be expressed universally as T=Dk. T=Dk is the equation of a rate, not a velocity. It directly implies that light is a process with no actual thing traveling between. Light is point-to-point as if you were touching, but something about distance causes the process to take longer? No. Something causes the process to take longer, creating “distance.”

It literally means light IS spooky action at a distance. Non-locality is the present reality. In light of my proof about time, every observation of the constant speed of light implies a non-locality nature.

When light “travels” 190% further in the same amount of time, it “manifests the non-locality,” as if distance contracted. That 90% extra “distance” is meaningless to a non-local process. From the perspective of outside observers, the non-locale reality manifests itself as the appearance of “time dilation.”

Let’s review a previous point:

If Bob thinks objects A and B are rapidly approaching, he views the photon as crossing a further distance. If Bob thinks he’s quickly approaching them, he considers the photon traveling a shorter length.

Bob thinking that the objects are approaching him or that he’s approaching them is redundant. Yet not acknowledging the non-local reality makes it seem like all kinds of illogical contradictions are happening. Contradictions never occur; exclusively, it’s people that create them.

The Copenhagen interpretation was adopted before significant advances in information theory and analytics. Physicists should be encouraged to allow critical input from those who have sought deep understanding in both areas. The interpretation is not valid. The math “works,” but it is unnecessarily complicated trying to clear riddles that don’t exist.

Distance is not a tangible thing. It cannot contract. However, you can manifest the non-locality, realize the truth about distance, and manipulate that. Non-locality is what is most apparent to me, and the perception of distance is somewhat illusionary. I believe they can be conquered.

Stay present.

Grusch’s Multidimensionality and ET Magic

What are dimensions, and how it applies to potential physical tech.

I spend much of my professional time creating “dimensional models” for analytical consumption. I understand information theory, like most are acquainted with their nose. Let’s try to explain what dimensions mean in the context of David Grusch’s multidimensional “non-human” tech.

It does not take a Ph.D. to understand it. Indeed, Ph.D.s should not be confused and argue about it at all. Still, we’re learning that even Ph.D.s in physics only sometimes appreciate mathematical principles. In analytics, we must distinguish between the object of investigation and the analytical tools we use to investigate them.

When Grusch says “higher dimensional space,” he is being highly metaphorical. The analytically clean way to describe it as “space” is non-dimensional. It’s an imaginary nothingness. The dimensionality comes directly from the object of study.

Electromagnetic radiation has three tangential aspects. We model it using x, y, z dimensions. Collectively we refer to the three dimensions as “space,” but that is metaphorical. Electromagnetism is what we are modeling. That’s the thing. We have a 3D experience because we are of electromagnetism, with three tangential aspects, not because we live in 3D “space.”

Two dimensions allow you to chart things. Three dimensions enable you to model electromagnetism. If we observe motion, we add a time dimension and call it “spacetime.”

However, “bending” or running a transformation on any dimension cannot have any physical meaning. It confuses the analytical dimension with the object of study.

If you must distort a dimension to make your model work, you have made some wrong assumptions. It’s the equivalent of management not thinking sales numbers are high enough, so they tell the analytics department to multiply everything by 1.3. I would call that fraud.

Now let’s do some ET magic:

We understand that electromagnetism operates in a way where electric force is induced into magnetic and back again. Imagine a third force (doovetic) that acts tangent to both the electric and magnetic. Electric and magnetic could be induced to express themselves as doovetic under the right conditions.

You would construct a 4D space to model any ElectroMangniDoovetic static state. 5D to include its motion. That’s how another physical force would drive analysts (but maybe not physicist?) to add another dimension to their model.

Our biology is absent any matter employing such doovetic functionality. A creature made of such materials, or one aware of the doovetic force, could potentially redeploy their existence into the doovetic “realm” with technology analogous to a “transformer,” causing them to vanish from our ElectroMagnetic-constructed awareness. They could be slinking around as ElectroDoovetic (ED) or MagnetoDoovetic (MD), and we would need ElectroMangniDoovetic(EMD)-constructed sunglasses to see them.

Image from a documentary I once saw 🙂

If they return to an EM state, someone could represent that metaphorically as “coming from a higher dimensional space.” But honestly, it sounds more like they just don’t understand the phenomena.

When people are speaking like dimensions are material things, you have to be careful because they may mean it metaphorically: “Time flies.” But it’s also possible they literally mean some self-contradictory nonsense: “Gravity is a warp in spacetime.”

Stay present.

On a personal note. Much of what David Grusch said yesterday hit me viscerally with joy. I feel his passion for people who have endured “systematic suppression.” Keep up the good work, brave soldier!

And Stay Silent About Time, Physicists

Mathematical Proofs mean sit down, shut up, and listen. Don’t bend spacetime; manifest nonlocality.

I will have to be quite demanding about my request that physicists stop spouting off about “time.” Time is information, not a material that bends, stretches, or engages in any process. Time is the domain of information theory, and physicists may need help understanding it. Physicists who derived the Copenhagen Interpretation had yet to hear of it.

The intellectual environment around the topic of time today is nothing but intellectual garbage. Time is intrinsically tied to our psychological wiring. That means we have many cognitive distortions that yield thoughts and perceptions that would not pass a logical validity test. (huge foreshadow)

I’ve been appalled at the number of people claiming college credentials who have responded to my proof with, “Well, now you just need to find the observation that would prove it.” That’s not how proofs work, my friends. When confronted with a proof, you are supposed to sit down, shut up, and listen.

Mathematical Proofs

We must reflect on the distinction between what we observe ( measure, study ) and the mental abstractions we use to speak about those things.
A square is an abstract concept. The intended meaning of “square” is something that cannot be observed. We say that we “observe” objects in the shape of a square. Because “equal sides” is the definition, someone saying, “I found a square yesterday, and when I measured it, its sides were not equal,” sounds like they’re having a personal integrity crisis. 

That’s how much of the gibberish about time sounds to me. I know people are more intelligent than that. The issue is that many have authoritatively, or even dictatorially so, asserted the exact same rubbish about time. Conveniently, the error hits humanity squarely in the biologically wired cognitive distortions about time that have them speaking metaphorically about it as if it “flies” or “passes.”

I have diligently forced my proof about time on as many physicists as I can afford to reach, and my only observation is how they all have zero to say. Rescue yourself from any intellectually compromised positions. There’s something new to learn.


Time is a description of an object’s motion in terms of another object’s motion. Today, the unit “seconds” is the notion of some steady rate of cesium-133 decay. The observation is of motion. Time is the abstracted, evaluated concept. The observation is of two objects in motion.

Someone saying, “I found an observation of time dilating,” sounds like the dude saying, “I found a square with irregular sides.” Proof:

If gravity affects the rate time flows, we must create a time dimension to describe this rate. Then we have two contradictory time dimensions. One we claim is “dilating,” and one is used to describe the dilation rate. Somebody’s “time dimension” is a fraud.

The metaphorical account is, let’s say, metaphorical, and the other is consistent with what we mean about time. The rate of my mechanical watch is catastrophically affected by rapid water intake. I would sound pretty silly, suggesting ‘being flooded with water’ represented a change in the rate of time’s metaphorical flow, precisely like someone who “observed” an irregular square.


Time does not bend. It’s self-contradictory to suggest at the scientific level. Many physicists understand this, but the public must be aware because such physicists have been authoritatively excluded from public discussion.

It’s time to tell me why my proof is in error or shut up. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but it just has to be. Until a physicist can stop being tongue-tied, time is my expertise, and I’m happy to answer any questions, or rational refutations to my ideas.

This has significant ramifications about why light cannot be a photon. Thus, we don’t want to “bend” spacetime but manifest the nonlocality.

I hope to live long enough to explain why.

Stay present.

Special shout out to one Robert Bennett for significantly accelerating the maturity rate of these ideas… or was that time accelerating? 😉


Psychological techniques used to pass fraudulent information support notions of intentional deception to push General Relativity

November 10th, 1919, the New York Times (known globally for their unquestionable authoritative voice) announced that Einstein’s theory of light had been “proved” by an eclipse expedition. A century later, it is empirically observable that Author Eddington’s data cannot confirm light bending around the Sun. Had the observation been authentic, it still wouldn’t prove anything, and an extremely robust study by a NASA engineer demonstrates that gravity does not affect light.

Scientific review of Arthur Eddington’s work shows that valid data was discarded that would have invalidated the observation. Essentially he cherry picked the data points that fit and dismissed the rest. Subsequent studies do validate the observation. However, the cause of light bending around the sun underscores how disingenuous it was for anyone to suggest that anything had been “proven.”

Laboratory experiments show that plasma causes light to refract. It turns out that the Sun is surrounded by an enormous atmosphere of invisible plasma known as the corona. That means the corona will deflect light. Therefore, to determine if gravity bends light, you can’t just have one observation of light bending around the Sun and consider the matter “proven.” Empirical testing must occur to ensure the plasma is not 100% responsible for the effect.

Saying that one observation of light bending around the sun “proves that gravity bends light” is the formal logical fallacy “affirming the consequent.” My favorite example is:

"If Bigfoot is real, we might hear him cracking twigs as he walks in the forest. I hear twigs breaking. Bigfoot is real."

That is the same disingenuous logic the New York Times used when suggesting Relativity had been “proven,” and it’s as fraudulent and dishonest as cherry-picking data.

Sadly, other deceitful press releases have also suggested that “gravity lensing” has been observed with zero effort to test if plasma is causing the effect.
Some papers indicate they detect deflection after subtracting for the plasma around the Sun. However, the theorized gravitational effect drops off quickly, making the results incredibly difficult to discern from the effects of plasma. Dubiously, the error bars are more significant than the effect they are trying to detect. They didn’t say, “we detected gravitation lensing with a p-value of < 0.2” It’s not a definitive answer.

Fortunately, Dr. Edward Dowdye, former NASA engineer, university professor of mathematics, and internationally recognized expert in Atomic Physics, Optics/LASERs/Satellites, thought of a way to make a definitive distinction between plasma and gravitational effects.

He examined the “collected images and the astrophysical data of the stars orbiting about Sagittarius A*, a region thought to contain a supermassive black hole.” It’s the most rigorous study into the question that I know and soundly definitive. The expected results from Relativity do not exist.

A Star orbits a black hole exhibiting gravitational lensing as predicted by the Light Bending Rule of General Relativity as presented in the Textbooks, Literature and Lectures
Star orbits a black hole showing no lensing effects as observed at the galactic center

Dowdye had some great graphics explaining the observations on his website extinctionshift.com which unfortunately no longer exists since his death, but can be found on the Wayback Machine. You can read his paper, “Gauss’s Law for Gravity and observational evidence reveal no solar lensing in empty vacuum space,” which tediously and thoroughly lays out the facts.

Objects around Sagittarius A*
White animations are the predicted observations of Relativity that are not observed.

I see nothing but fraud, quack logic, and gaslighting from those asserting that Relativity has observational support. They’re the same people that would attempt to fraudulently gaslight you out of $100. Those behaviors are immoral, and they’re turning our society into irrational idiots.

People no longer understand the distinction between shaming people into wrongness and intellectually explaining. I’m incredulous over the number of college graduates, scientists even, who don’t understand that logical proofs are not confirmed or invalidated by experimental evidence. Same with thinking observations can confirm mathematical principles.

People have a moral obligation to have some discernment to protect their brethren from being infected with bogus information. I feel that it’s part of my job to understand and discern how basic scientific principles apply to my work. I think of it as having integrity.

I recommend that people review all the basic logical fallacies, but maybe start with these:

  • Ad Hominem (“conspiracy theorist”)
  • Straw Man (“you’re suggesting this…”)
  • False Dichotomy (“are you going to buy my bullshit today or tomorrow”)
  • Appeal to Authority (“DOD says Swamp Gas.”, “Scientists say…”,) etc.

Then practice identifying them. The enemy is tearing away away at you, so you have to pump your own iron. You can build your muscle of discernment and become bulletproof to absurd lies.

Stay present.

Help Me Be Wrong

Find someone to invalidate my proof and I will buy you dinner.

As one who enjoys the scientific processes as much as a good mystery or psychological thriller, I am often tasked with proving myself wrong. However, after 40 years I have failed miserably to prove my assertions about time wrong.

I need your help (or anyone you can recruit) to explain to me (with reasoning they would publicly endorse) on why the following is not a proof that time cannot be something that warps, bends, or a place a creature could come from:

Bob Lazar has a creepy video where he proports to explain how the aliens traverse long distances. They “Distort or warp or bend” the fabric of spacetime, essentially putting spacetime in motion.

However, if we wanted to duscuss the rate ‘warps’ occur in ‘spacetime,’ we would be required to construct a new 5th dimension called “time” to articulate how warps in spacetime occure over time. Therefore, such warps cannot literally be in (or of) that which we call time. It is a direct logical contradiction.

If you can help me find someone who can explain why that is not proof, I will buy you dinner! Seriously! I’m desperate. I’m positive I just reduced everything Bob said to meaningless absurdity. Still, everyone tells me I’m insane for thinking I could even have proof, but nobody will explain why my proof is invalid.

I have many people who think academia is a criminal syndicate and that my proof is valid, but obviously, they’re crazy conspiracy theorists also. After 40 years of having my cognitive senses invalidated with no actual argument, I’m about to conclude that I might be correct and everyone else is wrong.

Please rescue me from that inevitable state of arrogance! If you can find a public voice who can invalid that proof, I will buy you a $100 gift card to your favorite restaurant.

ChatGPT Knows What Time It Is

ChatGPT clarifies that time does not bend and isn’t a place creatures come from.

Clearly, ChatGPT knows nothing. However, other than just spewing out consensus reality with an authoritative tone, we can use its sophisticated linguistics tools to coax out otherwise obscure truths about time hidden under “imprecise or metaphorical language.” None of which were direct lies, but the message YOU heard very well might have been blazingly invalid.

As a competent analyst of reality, I begin my inquest into what ChatGPT can tell us about time by delineating what is actually observed vs what is intellectual in nature.

After some banter about the distinction I’m trying to make…

It made a colloquial error describing distance as a physical thing being measured, which it will later correct when it agrees with me that temperature is a bend in space-distance 🙂

But first, let’s get to the heart of the matter.

I bet most people didn’t expect it to say that!

And it knows the difference between General and Special.

As a professional expert in dimensional modeling, I knew dimensions (like time) are abstract analytical tools that creatures can’t come from. However, everyone like Jacque Vallee, who has US Intelligence connections regarding aliens, seems blissfully unaware and hostile to the notion. Weird.

This is excellent stuff. ChatGPT says no thing that could bend or is a location should be construed as “time.” Notice that the last clause invokes time as some natural phenomena that can be studied, contrary to everything else it just said. I assume it’s just because it’s how people talk…

Give that boy a gold star! However, given how often I had to coerce it into clarifying with precise language, the statement felt a bit hypocritical.

In my effort to be thorough, I challenged it several more times on the physical mechanism of gravity, and it regurgitated typical relativity banter that linguistically appeared to contradict its assertion that time is a concept. You can go around in many circles. (Relativity and its many contradictions, circular arguments, and disciples who don’t understand that contradictions prove it wrong) However, when directly confronted with the paradox…

I think ChatGPT did a good job of exposing the actual rational meaning of General Relativity, and nearly everyone’s understanding is a “colloquial or metaphorical” idea of a literal time moving faster is invalid. Nor is it a place that creatures come from. The notion that a dimension could even represent a substance that can bend, travel itself at a “rate”, or a location stems from the massive confusion around the “colloquial or metaphorical” usage of the term “time.”

General Relativity uses a framework that must bend to describe gravity, and those bends are not a physical cause, just the highly confusing model. Observably nobody who thinks time can bend can demonstrate the ability to create gravity, meaning they have no clue what causes it. When you create gravity, that’s when you get to pontificate authoritatively about it’s causes.

Spirit manifests as both mind and body. Only by holding them as mutually exclusive can you see how they are one.

The time is now, as long as you are present.

Stay present.

Announcing New Page on Time

I have now published the final draft as the official Time 101 page. That page should be available now in the menu

I have a post on Time called “Time 101” that was always indented to be a “rough draft” of a Time 101 page. I have now published the final draft as the official Time 101 page. That page should be available now in the menu above. I also edited the Time 101 post, but I’ll eventually make that a redirect.

I’ll mention my neglect of the Swarm project: ESA got funding to extend their mission, however that meant they had to adjust the orbits. With the satellites swinging around at different altitudes, my current modals were wrecked.

All that data is going to be information rich from a historical perspective. However, trying to use my model was like guessing when and which direction ESA would move their satellite. I’ve been picking at it again as I should have enough data now to get a grip on it.

I want to thank again, because I’m deeply appreciative to the wonderful people at the European Space Agency, Directors within Lockheed Martin Astronautics, and physicists in Belarus (you know who you are) who took time out to personally answer my questions, provide encouragement and help fuel this project. It wouldn’t have a heartbeat today without you.

Forces are Now or Never

I’m disappointed when people think atomic clocks in space or airplanes prove that “time moves” or “we move through time.” This mythical belief with no evidence and massively invalidated by commonly available evidence is more common in modern times than in Shamanistic cultures of 5,000 BC.

Affirming the Consequent is the fallacy of thinking, “if I move through time, our clocks will get out of sync; our clocks are out of sync. Therefore, it’s PROVEN that one of us is moving through time faster.” If you think that’s proof, think again. Twigs breaking in the forest do not prove Snuffleupagus just because he might break twigs while walking.

Another issue is people assume “super accurate” clocks are authoritative. However, in practice, if something like air pressure affects your highly sensitive clock’s motion, it will be HIGHLY distorted by that effect. In my experience, all clock inaccuracies are traced to forces affecting their motion/action. Many forces affect clocks’ actions. Assuming clocks get out of sync because time shifts is quite the imaginative leap, but it’s also irrational

Time is an analytical measurement (a quantitative ordinal number, not a place you can travel to.) We’re just dividing the motion of one object into another. We don’t observe “time.” We observe motion, and time is the unit of measure. We never “measure” time, but we measure motion and describe motion in terms of other familiar motions (earth rotations.) Maybe Earth rotations can (and do) change, and maybe the process you are measuring is changing rate, but “time” as a label for the measurement can’t bend. A time measurement is either in “per day rotations” exactly, or it’s some made up number. There’s no room for bending/fudging in scientific measurements.

There is no past or future; there is only One Present Moment. When you move, you are not a wiggly line from past to future that some machine is scanning over. You move because you are a “presence” and a force to be reckoned with. Thinking of yourself as on a conveyor belt through time detracts from the truth that you are the creator of your destiny.

What does a fledgling consciousness push against without the One Present Moment? How can anything be true motion if it’s not “here NOW” and then “there NOW?” Valid conscious action (force) couldn’t have any meaning in a “moving through time” scripted universe.

Out of sync clocks only proof that measurements are fallible. Outside influences affects their measurement. But variations of the measurement can never be caused the the measurement concept bending or stretching. We don’t measure time or space. They are abstractions we derive from measuring relative motion and distance.