Have to laugh at these guys try to invoke Isaac's absolute/relative definitions including his attempt to define time using a timekeeping facility known as the Equation of Time.

Unlike the ham-fisted bumbling of his followers, Sir Isaac is trying to follow Huygen's description of the Equation of Time and include a geocentric/heliocentric equivalency in the process -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passes the 12. Signs,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptic in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or thereabout, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lengths; as is known to all that are versed in
Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a
day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the
same numbers as before) make up, or are equal to that revolution: And
this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches
are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches,
though they be perfectly just and equal, must needs differ almost
continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd
according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is
otherwise call'd the Equation of Time.." Huygens

Dear, oh dear - the Equation of Time is an outrigger of the 365/366 day calendar framework so doesn't fit into the fractional setup of Huygens, after all, February 29th needs an EoT adjustment too.

I think you guys are better off dealing with the arguments of flat Earth people who also have mathematics degrees -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWZGky6Rc0

Of course you people believe the moon also rotates so talk about hapless !.