"Lorentz introduced an auxiliary time variable, his "local time," in each inertial frame of reference. To complete this approach, Einstein would have to accept that this local time was just the time, plain and simple, of the inertial frame of reference. [...] In an introductory historical preamble to a 1907 survey of relativity theory, Einstein remarked in words that to me have an autobiographical ring: "One needed only to realize that an auxiliary quantity that was introduced by H. A. Lorentz and that he called 'local time' can simply be defined as 'time'." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...over_final.pdf

So we have an inertial frame of reference, Einstein defines 'time' for it, but this 'time' is measured by whom? If the 'time' is measured by an observer in a different frame of reference, then 'time' doesn't make much sense, does it? If the 'time' is measured by an observer in the same inertial frame of reference, then things become dangerous for Divine Albert's Divine Theory. It turns out that moving clocks are FAST, not slow as Einsteinians enthusiastically teach.

David Morin is perhaps the only Einsteinian who says the truth about moving clocks. According to Einstein's relativity, MOVING CLOCKS RUN FAST:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow..."

Pentcho Valev