>Hey all,
>
>I'm working on some... um... fringe research, I guess you could say.

Do you ever do anything other than fringe? < bg >

>Anyways, the most important part of my research is not me writing up ideas for myself, but instead writing them with the goal of having you understand them. To that end I've completely re-written my texts.
>
>So, if you're interested in how the Universe works please give this website a read through, or two:
>
>http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
>
>This is for any reader, not just a physicist, in fact, I'm really interested in what non-scientists have to say about the paper. Is it understandable? What is the hardest to understand? What is easy to understand? What does the paper do wrong, and what does it do right?
>
>The more comments and criticisms you throw my way the better.

Interesting read, and I could understand it. As I was reading the time and motion analogies, I was reminded of an engineering course I took in college. The professor demonstrated that regardless of speed, there is always one part of the tire or wheel that is motionless for just an instant [giving rise to friction]. It is that part that is directly in contact with the path (e.g., the road). If, in that instant, that part was not motionless, the tire would only spin and you would go nowhere.

To prove this to yourself, all you need are a bunch of evenly spaced spokes around a hub. You could do this with popsicle sticks in a styrofoam ball. Now "roll" the sticks across a counter top. The tip of the stick in contact with the counter is the one that is motionless for an instant while the rest move. The "contact spoke" does not really move until the spoke ahead of it contacts the counter. Using the model you wrote about, I guess you could say change and the advancement of time does not occur until the next "point of contact" hits the counter, or "when the rubber hits the road". < bg >