> In other words, you simply claim that time is absolute,
[EL]
Why other words!
What is wrong with my words in my words and not in other words!
Which time is that time which is absolute!
I am talking about relative time because time is relative by
definition of being a dimensionless ratio of cycles.
All what I said is that that ratio can change positively and
negatively to reflect the state of relative vectors whether we
consider them vectors of change in the same coordinate system or
invariant vectors within different coordinate systems undergoing a
change of state of motion. Thus I am clearing confusion regarding
logical foundations of transformations.

> and any ideal clock will show absolute time.
[EL]
That is not true of course, because assuming a clock to be ideal would
only mean that the time it is measuring is homogenous onto itself such
that each successive time interval is assumed to be exactly equal to
the one that preceded it in its own frame of reference. There is
nothing absolute about that when we only mean constancy.
Einstein takes the speed of light to be constant in all inertial
frames, and I simply conclude that time taken as the reciprocal of the
constant frequency of that constant speed to be constant time
intervals because that frequency cannot be shifted onto itself without
relative observation.