Alternate definitions of time

Swanson... which of these are anything more than an aether drift experiment? These show quite well that light moves at a constant speed relative to it's source (each mirror). Doesn't give any logical confirmation of time's mutibility... let alone that this explanation is more viable than a physical change that is "real" in all inertial frames.

I'm sorry. Where are the mirrors in an HP5061 (or 5071, for the later experiments) cesium frequency standard?

You say: "There is no mechanism to slow these rates. You have to have atomic systems and nuclear systems and subnuclear particle interactions — all with different coupling strength — affected in an identical fashion. There is nothing in the models that would allow for this."

 

Yet, you seem to have come to the same conclusion and accepted it as fact... that these subnuclear particle interactions are somehow defined by the flow through a fabric of time as opposed to time being a way to universally describe an order of operations. That leap of faith is what I question.

There's this variable we call time, that's been a part of physics for, well, basically as long as we've had physics. Relativity predicts it's not invariant. Experiment confirms this behavior, in just the way that the theory predicts. The theory is intimately intertwined with a fairly wide scope of physics. That's why it's accepted. It's not a leap of faith.

If you have an alternative, make the model and subject it to tests. Preferably, the model will not be pre-falsified by experiments that have already been done.

The experiments you listed seem to all be a bunch of remakes of Michelson-Morley....

You can ask for experiments, but really aren't in a position to dictate the details; these experiments confirm the theory and that's the objective of doing an experiment — something that works if the theory is right and fails if it's wrong. But this is false, anyway, since the ones you previously listed (Hafekle-Keating, GPS) are certainly not M-M remakes.