This is just thoughts. I need to get them sorted out, but they make sense to me.

This 'phasespace' Smolin wonders about, and LightArrow pointed out to me, made me reconsider my understanding of 'SpaceTime'. I realized that we in both would find all points unique. One of the reasons people gets confused seems to be that they see Einsteins SpaceTime as a 'whole', and Lorentz transformations as a 'proof' of it being so. That is only a part of it as I think, I don't see it as a 'whole', although it is a 'whole' to me when measuring it.

This moldable 'jello' (SpaceTime) you experience is definitely a 'whole', as far as you are concerned seamlessly fitting. But your neighbors SpaceTime won't fit yours. Einsteins universe is defined from one thing, and one thing only, 'constants'. The 'space' we live in is a geometry. The geometry is defined by clocks.

It's not the only definition you can use, but it is the one that makes most sense to me, and the one I will go out from here.

Think of all points in SpaceTime as defined from your 'clock'. That 'clock' is related to the 'gravity' that couples to mass, and 'motion'. It creates your own unique SpaceTime, and becomes the 'frame of reference' defining all other frames. But all those 'points' you observe, defined by your clock, each one of them has its own unique clock, and where you at any of those other 'points' you would now find SpaceTime slightly differently defined. To that you can add the way 'motion' and mass (and 'energy' as an idea) redefines it. The 'point' I want to make here

is that all points see SpaceTime slightly different.

It opens for a question though. Just as with Smolins momentum space, it seems to create an absurdity? How can any two points ever couple to each other, becoming the 'composites' we call matter if they find distances differ? A orange is consisting of molecules, the molecules consists of atoms, the atoms lies inside the realm of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and the 'force carriers' between those atoms (virtual particles) are definitely not 'here', in the sense of being measurable.

And all of those points the orange makes must then have their own unique definition of a 'distance', and 'clocks', as you observe them, or as they observe all else. So what defines that orange? Where and how can it exist? That question is the strongest argument I can see for a definition of a 'smallest bit' existing.

==

What you must keep in mind reading me here is that although all clocks have a same beat/duration locally, each one will measure all other clocks to a different beat than their neighbor does. And that is because the universe is a geometry defined through radiations unchanging ground beat. That 'clock' always tick the same for you locally, the only thing changing being the relations you measure relative the rest of the universe, relative motion and mass/energy (Gravity).

==

Assume

that there is a smallest 'bit'. A 'point' if you like. Also assume that all 'clocks' have a same duration. That one is checkable by you, as you nowhere will find a different duration. If the clocks now are the same on a very small plane, just as 'big' as your 'frame of reference' has to be by the way (Do try to define that 'size', if you can:), then they can couple to each other. And with greater 'sizes' or scales we will get 'space'. 'Space' is a definition, coming and following those clocks. And 'space' is defined through 'radiation'. Why it is so has to do with what we call 'constants'. Those are, as far as I can see, borders for our SpaceTime . The problem is to see what the 'constants' really consist of. But one is lights speed in a vacuum, and the fact that this 'speed' do not vary, ever. Not as you will measure it locally.

We live in 'space' defined by 'clocks', those clocks defines your universe. Then we have what I call 'size'. That's also the composites we call 'matter', they are all defined through 'size'. As you look out in the universe you measure a gravitational well from afar, like a neutron star, finding their 'clocks' to go very slow. Then you do the same with a Black Hole, and as you measure closer to its event horizon with your measuring apparatus, you now find that all 'clocks' seems to stop.

So, do they? Not according to my definitions, all points have a same 'ground beat' as we can see by measuring your clock 'locally', it will show the same durations according to you. Also according to all experiments you can make, no matter where you do it, the best being to measure lights speed in a vacuum using that as your 'clock'. But there must be something changing if you now place yourself at the Event horizon, instead of just measuring its 'clocks' from afar. What can change for you? The clock can't, but distance can.

Distance is a definition from 'clocks'. All 'clocks' have a a same 'duration' locally according to my definitions, and what defines a 'space' is 'size/scaling up' and 'constants'.

We live in a very weird universe. There are more to it, it has also to do with QM, but I had to write it down while I still remembered it. But QM is all a matter of 'size' to me.

==

Then we come to the idea of 'space' moving faster than light, as when passed the event horizon. That is incorrect, 'space' doesn't move. It's the way it gets defined by our measurements (clock) that makes us describe it that way. But inside that event horizon, the 'space' you observe will be able to be 'infinite'. And it all has to do with those 'clocks' same 'ground state', and 'symmetry'. SpaceTime is a balance defined by the observer.

=

Space is a construct by clocks. Or if you like, 'coupled' to clocks. And it is very correct to define it as a nothing, it is. What defines a 'space' is nothing, and 'gravity'. Gravity defines its 'shape' becoming its metric. And each point of that 'gravity' is a unique 'clock' redefining the way you observe the rest of the universe. But they all have a same 'ground beat/state/duration' defined by the best 'clock' that exists, radiation.