RC No, it is clear that time passes differently in frames moving in relation to each other, both see reciprocal slowing in the other frame. Time also slows for acceleration/gravity fields. Time is variable. That variability is caused by events and by matter. Left alone, motionless in relatively empty space time passes at it's fastest possible rate(whatever that rate is in that nearly empty frame at a standstill(Relatively, anyway)). Time passes whether there are events or not, in fact events cause it to pass at slower rates, you don't get faster time with more events, you get slower time the more extreme those events are. So why posit that it approaches a maximum with less extreme events(or no events at all), yet disappears entirely when the last event ceases? Does not make sense. Events can DEFINE time, but they do not cause time. It is a dimension of space/time, we are always traveling toward the future at faster or slower rates depending on our frame's conditions/state. You could stop time by going lightspeed or standing on a BH, two of the most extreme events. So no, events occur in time, their occurrence does not create time, they dilate it. Er...no. When you compare two events you are only comparing their rates of time, you are not creating time. That was a joke, not a complaint. And I don't think Einstein meant what you think he meant. But our math is an invention that is subject to being used incorrectly. I avoid it like poison. Until one groks what you are trying to apply math to, it's unlikely you will do it correctly or get an accurate result(though Einstein got lucky getting his Cosmological Constant almost right for the wrong reason). There are others here much better versed in Lorenz transforms or Malinowski space if the math helps you understand it. It just gives me headaches, nasty stuff. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!