space. There is continual energy input (i.e.promotional energy which is loss of "universal" potential energy)as there is continual 4th dimensional change in position, (towards interior of the hypersphere Megauniverse, in my opinion.) Yes, that is the first part of his essay. The problem is that he then goes on to (try to) say that anything above that determined by his principle of least action doesn't constitute a real measure of time. To repeat; "To quote Barbour again, "The key thing is that no time is assumed in advance. A time worthy of the name does not exist on any of the non-extremal curves. Time emerges only on the extremal curves." The flaw here is that as a consequence of motion, time would be equally relevant to the non-extremal curves, as it is to the extremal curves. It would simply be relative to the system being described." What he seems to be trying to do is to peel away Einstein's relative clock time and go back to Newton's absolute time, i.e. "A time worthy of the name." The problem is what I keep pointing to, if time is a consequence of motion, a fixed point in time is a contradiction, since it negates the very motion on which time is based, so the parameters of the unit are an inherent function of the method of measurement, not that the method is an approximation of something more accurate. Time is what you measure with ANY clock. The bible speaks: light has appeared