Thanks for your interesting reply. In the prereq, I "Cheated", by checking out the answers given by your other respondees. (I think I am allowed to do that, because I am an Engineer, rather than a physicist - you guys do the hard physics. Folk like me just try to apply it, praise it when it works, and holler when it doesn't work ;-)
Looks to me like Fred-Rick got your challenge right. On watching your time matters 5 min record, those are some interesting thoughts, but for me I am not sure how time dilation matters to practical applied physics, as relevant to the immediate energy problem we are facing, other than maybe adding evidence debunking the big bang fallacy, that we really have to abandon ASAP, because it now impacts folk's practical perceptions of how energy works at the practical level. So I think what you are writing about is good.
It could be improved, I think by tying it into gravity somehow. Then it would become something practically applicable.
To me, what you are saying about time dilation is something largely unprovable as stands, because by definition we have no real way of measuring it, other than red shift, which we are interpreting almost as s kind of timestamp.
But if it tied theoretically into gravity, which again might be something we can only measure relatively, maybe revealing more about the fundamental nature of gravity, and how we might work with that, then it would become something much more practically useful, I think.
I still have something in my head about gravity, which has never left me since it occurred to me as a teenager - why do we assume atoms themselves not to be expanding, like space? If they were expanding, this would explain the accelleration we feel, stuck to the surface of a very large mass of expanding atoms (Earth), The atoms of our own bodies constantly expanding also. If this was the case, then cleverer folk than me might work out how we could "Cheat" that system, achieving motion through space, and maybe even matter. I would be just as happy to see evidence disproving it as proving it. But I've seen neither :)
