[yor_on]

But from the point of view of me, what becomes classical will still be a matter of geometry and interactions. Turned around to that other point of view it's something of a magnitude forcing a outcome.

[yor_on]

Thinking of it I think I want to change 'forcing' a outcome to 'demanding' a outcome.  But without dimensions involved you will need some other definition of how it 'interacts'. We already have one definition of that possibility in entanglements.

[yor_on]

Well, that's another argument I wonder about. That dimensions are a construction, not a 'origin'. It would at least simplify a entanglement, presuming it could be provable. It would simplify the way our universe can be shrunk too, as well as 'curved spaces'.

[yor_on]

The 'Big Bang' is defined as coming to be everywhere. So if you thought relativity and quantum mechanics are the only  weirdos in the room you were wrong. Astronomy is there too.

[yor_on]

And if you happen to believe in a accelerating expansion then that doesn't even matter for this. New or old 'patches' of the vacuum, they are all equivalently 'old'  from a perspective of the Big Bang happening everywhere.

[yor_on]

So yes, making dimensions a 'construction' makes a lot of sense to me.

[yor_on]

Time was my first interest when I started to wonder about relativity. People normally tend to use a 'global view' when it comes to time, using relativity it means that from this global definition time becomes fluid. It becomes questionable, but to me that reasons out from a flawed proposition. It demands that there is a 'global reality' from where you then can look at time.

That's why I question how to get to that 'global definition'. You need to become a God first.

[yor_on]

Locally defined time doesn't change its pace. All your natural bodily functions will run out relative that wristwatch at a same time, no matter how fast you go or at what mass you are situated. It doesn't matter for you, and neither does it for me.

[yor_on]

And when you define a clock rate to some other object you will use your own clock rate as the anchor. That also means that if two observers do it at different relative motions versus each other, both will get to a different clock rate for the object. If they then becomes at rest with the object, and each other, all time differences disappear.

mass and speeds

[yor_on]

Yeah, you could call it my twist of 'realism' :)

[yor_on]

Logically, if now time is non existent, as arguing that clocks are fluid, how come you just need to be at rest with something to synchronize those clocks?

[yor_on]

Another problem with 'fluid time rates' is that you then have no way of defining your own. There can't exist a standard for it, making your definition worthless. Unless we define a equivalence to all local clocks. And the standard we use can't take into consideration f.ex a uniform motion. Because there is no standard for how to define 'null motion' existing either. It's impossible to get to a 'golden standard' both when it comes to clock rates and relative motion.

And mistake me right here. This is a problem existing long before relativity. what we did was to define earth as our golden standard. And in a way we still do.

[yor_on]

When we use mass and speeds (and curved space) to translate one clock rate into another it doesn't give us a 'golden standard', it gives us a equivalence. Using the definition I tend to prefer all local clocks are equivalent and the proof of it is when they come to be at rest with each other.

[yor_on]

Mass gives it a added complication so for this you need to imagine two identical point masses being at rest with each other. Or make them mass less :) But I wouldn't recommend that because then we come into the territory where 'photons propagates'. Which according to all astronomical evidence makes them 'time less' particles.

[yor_on]

After all, we can define light that's 13.7~ billion light years old, just by using a telescope. That's the current age of the universe as I understands it.

[yor_on]

And yes, if you think of it as the 'size' or scale of our universe you are correct.

Until you move.
change place.

[yor_on]

Because when you teleport from A to B the universe you see will still be 13.7 billion lightyears all around you. Your move took you no closer to a limit.

[yor_on]

And the proof of that is realtive motion, everything can be proven to move relative each other, even if we find no standard for it. Earth moves, the solar system moves, the Galaxy moves. But it doesn't change a thing when it comes to a limit of the universe.

[yor_on]

looked at one way it makes time a origin, doesn't it? The universe may be infinite but time has a origin and it is the same no matter from where you look at it.

[yor_on]

A time and a pace. All locally defined.