> but in relativity dimensions do not "flow" in any conventional sense That is not really the point. You are concentrating on the word flow, and maybe I chose

> but in relativity dimensions do not "flow" in any conventional sense That is not really the point. You are concentrating on the word flow, and maybe I chose that foolishly, so bear in mind that I'm of course not a native speaker. If we discard for a moment things that move at the speed of light, that leaves us with objects for which time does not stand still. Whether or not you agree with the word "flow", is it really that objectionable to characterize the experience of time as a movement through a fourth dimension? My entire point in this regard was really that relative velocity and time dilation are linked. Which they are. It's right there in the math. Maybe my mistake was to use "flow" conversationally, but if you could see past that it would probably a more productive discussion for both of us. > "a decrease in the flow of time" requires a violation of the principle of relativity You misunderstood what I was trying to say, in a colossal way. I apologize for not being clearer. At no point was I suggesting a global "flow of time". In fact, I made a special effort to talk about individual reference frames.