I am sorry that I didn't quite follow your reasoning there  could you please elaborate on what you mean by "no causality for anything outside of the orbit of the earth, which is obviously not the case".
I guess I always explain to myself, what I think maybe you mean, to myself by rationalizing that we here on earth experience "time" as the components of energy associated with our planetary mass orbiting the sun as it spins about it's own axis as I described and that  any other life form or inanimate object would experience say "mars time" as the planetary energy of that particular planet etc.
Obviously  because we have ways of measuring the passage of time (or our planets journey thru the universe), that we could then use those same units (based on our rate of spin about our own axis) to measure passage of time on say Mars again  in terms that we are familiar with, i.e earth time or Earth based quanta of energy...BUT couldn't we equally use say a Mars day etc to measure passage of time on Mars based upon its spin rate about its own axis and its own passage thru the universe?
Each would be equally valid units of measurement would they not and each could be converted to the other form with a simple ratio conversion?
I seem to recall that A Einstein had a small problem with his special theory of relativity  referred to as the "twin paradox".
Twin paradox  Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity, in which a twin makes a journey into space in a highspeed rocket and returns home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on Earth. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as traveling, and so, according to a naive application of time dilation, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly. In fact, the result is not a paradox in the true sense, since it can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity. The effect has been verified experimentally using measurements of precise clocks flown in airplanes[1] and satellites.
Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been numerous explanations of this paradox, many based upon there being no contradiction because there is no symmetry—only one twin has undergone acceleration and deceleration, thus differentiating the two cases. One version of the asymmetry argument made by Max von Laue in 1913 is that the traveling twin uses two inertial frames: one on the way up and the other on the way down. So switching frames is the cause of the difference, not acceleration per se.[2]
Other explanations account for the effects of acceleration. Einstein, Born and Møller invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging based upon the effects of acceleration.[3] Both gravitational time dilation and special relativity can be used to explain the HafeleKeating experiment on time dilation using precise measurements of clocks flown in airplanes.

So essentially what is being spoken of here is just what I suggested could be the explanation that there are different frames of reference  one mars time and another earth time.
At the end of the day both are just different quanta of energy based on each planets mass and velocity thru space, and inertial spin moment  which of course are different for the two planets.
Another possibility exists however.
That is that there is a problem with Einsteins special theory of relativity
e =mc^2
I would contend at this point that is exactly the case.
If c is indeed the universal constant, the limit velocity of light in a vacuum (I would contend that it is ONLY the OBSERVABLE limit velocity of light in a vacuum) and is equal roughly to 186,000 mils per second or 3 x 10^8 meters per second then we have a very simple but long overlooked problem with the equation.
for e = mc^2 to be correct  then the value for C mathematically can be both
A ) +ve 3 x 10^8 meters per second
and
B ) ve 3 x 10 ^8 meters per second
Because as any year 9 math student will tell you  there are two solutions to the square root and one id positive and the other is the negative root!
When squared as happens with e = mc^2 both values will yeild a positive outcome.
This is akin to saying that the value of the speed of light C can be 3 x 10^ 8 meters East as well as 3 x 10^8 meters per second West at the same time!
That is clearly paradoxical!
(Just as the twin paradox is paradoxical)
Usually a paradoxical outcome is the result of starting put with a false premise.
A simple example should demonstrate this point!
Premise 1 = All Dogs have 4 legs
Premise 2 = All 4 legged animals are cats
Therefore
All dogs are cats
or
All cats are dogs
Premise 2 is obviously False and accounts for the paradoxical outcome!
In Einstein's case the false premise he started out with  was ignoring the negatove root solution to his special theory of relativity equation, e =mc ^2, which is a mathematical and scientific "no no" of huge proportions.
It is therefore understandable that his outcome was paradoxical! The aforementioned twin paradox quoted above and the negative root solution!
Anyway before I head off at at tangent  I just wanted to show that I think there are many different versions of time within the universe and that each depends on where you are in space and in what system of measurement units you wish to measure it.
I guess I should add this
Where I posted that e=mc^2 isn't correct  there is just ONE possibility  that makes it true!
I believe the error to be that OBSERVABLE Light speed limit velocity 3 x 10^8 meters per second and that in light speed terms that is just mach 1 equivalent to sound barrier, and that like sound  light also can jump the limit observable velocity to warp 2 or 3 etc just as suggested in good ol star trek movies  "warp speed 9 please Mr Zulu, Spock you have the con!"
But seriously,
IF the speed of light were in fact "infinite"  then e = mc^2 then works  because infinity squared is still infinity!
We know that for near earth calculations e = mc^2 seems to give the correct answer in most instances!
My suggestion is that the value for the speed of light should be infinite!
Something worth considering in relation to this speed of light question is this.
Again as quoted above
Quote:
Time on an atom passes much faster than time at the earth level does.Why is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time (electron shell), or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity?.
The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.
It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally redshifted by a nucleonsized black hole!.
This changes all observed measurements of time and distance. The amount of time dilation or gravitational redshifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

I have heard / read it suggested that when Einstein adopted Mitchellson Morleys lineal and rotational analogue light speed experimental results value for the speed of light in his 21 equation proof for his special relativity theorem  that instead of adopting the universal constant c speed of light, that if he had adopted his own constant Alpha from his nobel prize winning photoelectric effects paper, and that had he done so  he would have found the much sought after Grand Unification Theorem that he searched in vain for until his end.
Interestingly when you look at that above statement about the passage of time at the atomic level...and the value for alpha and the mas of the lectron compared to the proton and neutron and the fact that it us always 1/137th of the sped of light  the OTHER interesting fact is that the electron "behaves as a shell" as though it were everywhere about the nucleus of the atom at the same time or has "infinite" speed!
I did deliberate on this at some length, and something else strange occurred to me.
Way back at the beginning of the Bible in genesis we are told that our creator God is the Alpha and the Omega (The Beginning and the End)
As you know from the above;
the value of Alpha is 1/137
&
The value of Omega is infinity!
Do we not have in this statement the make up of our reality state in the fundamental building block relationship of mass and the actual speed of light (infinity)?
Sorry for getting ahead of the discussion.
Please do elaborate on your statement;
Quote:
"no causality for anything outside of the orbit of the earth, which is obviously not the case".

As stated I am only too willing to learn and correct any misunderstanding that my physics understanding might be flawed in some areas.
Cheers!