Glad you've now also come to that realization. In science (and basically any field that deals with logic) it is customary to define/describe things before using them. So, any place before you use them would be fine. In other words: "So they are irrelevant in that step. Why did you mention them then?" And as I explained, that's a problematic term, due to the "frequency" part. Non-static has the same circular problem as dynamic. Obviously. Because it's a synonym (in this context). It's right there in the quote? Please point out exactly where I omitted it. So, another revision.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Also, what you wrote down here strongly suggests you are not talking about reality: you have a model with 2 Re dimensions and 2 Im dimensions, yet reality has 3 spatial dimension and 1 time dimension. That doesn't seem to be compatible. And yet another revision!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And once again, you've made your argument circular. If you define something as "consistent with Special Relativity", you are defining time, as that's part of SR. (OK) (I see you've already retracted that claim. You know, if you tried to explain why you thought it was circular, you wouldn't have made that mistake again.) I figured, but that does mean you have misunderstood something fundamental, because you conclude it to be necessary anyway. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. You claimed that particles having log books is required, and you've already admitted that was pure speculation. But let me sketch an outline of a proof anyway: take a closed system at two distinct times. Calculate the amount of information in the system, as modeled by the Standard Model of particle physics (note: this model contains no particle log books). If you do that, you'll notice that the amount of information remains constant. It does not decrease, as you claimed. All your argument so far assumed time to exist, albeit you introduced in an indirect way, by using a time-dependent term. Every time you fail in this way, you are inadvertently building a stronger and stronger case that time is inherently (i.e. necessarily) a part of the physics models you are using. Actually, that's perfectly possible. Look up what "proper time" means (in the context of SR). You can find it in any introductory SR textbook.