Mauro, Although I do not completely disagree with anything you say, you still have not made a good case for the assertion that "velocity (motion)" is more basic, as an underlying measurement standard - or prime-variable, than is "time".
In every case you site, you are in effect eliminating 'relativity' considerations by injecting the POV of a preferred viewer. For instance, when you say: "Please note that when we observe or measure time, we always do it indirectly." Not exactly true ! Or at least it is the same situation when we observe and measure space, since we also do that indirectly as well. Any observer must depend on physical inputs - inputs that either the viewer instigates, or else the viewer receives - such as reflected photons. You must eliminate the local viewer - in order to make the case for what is to be the most basic variable in our mental understanding of "how to measure anything." And of course that is hard to do, in the abstract. But all-in-all, let's step back a moment. Isn't this exercise little more than a "tempest in a teapot"? I mean- what are the furthest implications which you could imagine for the correct answer, even if there were one? OK - moving on... And being one who like to indulge in meaningless trivia on occasion - and for the sake of argument, I will contend that only with "time" as the prime and most basic variable - is the local viewer and his particular POV most nearly eliminated. This is because the universe does contains it own mechanism for gauging "duration" accurately, a "universal clock" if you will; and this functions to eliminate the local POV of any viewer throughout the entire expanse of space. That mechanism can be reduced to the standard "clock" with a ticking rate of 1420 MHz - and is timed precisely by the spin isomers of hydrogen; and most importantly is available everywhere in the Universe, independent of POV. The ball is now in your court. Jones
