[yor_on]

That doesn't state that time isn't a construction too though, but we still see a origin of it.

[yor_on]

It's worth pondering. The universe being infinite, provably so, but time not. Time will give you the same result no matter from where you stand looking. Three 'infinite' dimensions, one with a 'origin'. And a 'Big Bang' starting 'everywhere'.

[yor_on]

Einstein defined it as a dimension. SpaceTime as if the four dimensions we then define all glue together.

[yor_on]

And globally defined they are fluid. Locally it doesn't matter for me what you see as true though. It's all a result of ones frame of reference. But as we saw the idea of a global interpretation is highly questionable. 'The pole in the barn' isn't a global representation, it's a story told from two different but equivalently true frames of reference. the conclusion that it can't happen comes from a flawed argument, that there exist a 'global golden standard' of reference frame.
=

some truly funny spelling fault, and that I think I will blame on my spellchecker.
No, I won't tell you what it was. Let it die in peace :)

[yor_on]

And that is weird. You might want to think that there is no logic to it, but it's actually the opposite. There's only logic to it. And if it is true, what does it make the universe you look out at?

[yor_on]

Looking at what I wrote, do you want to know what I find weirdest with physics?
that it still becomes simpler to understand than humans :)

[yor_on]

Hmm, light?

No time to it, still able to be directed from A to B, and interacting with everything of substance in between. In a vacuum there are no interactions unless there is mass in the direction of it. Doesn't age.

Entanglements, sharing properties in between themselves due to somehow getting correlated through 'bumping' or 'splitting'. Those properties continuing a communication ignoring the geometry. Also out of time.

[yor_on]

Everything inside time obey 'c'

[yor_on]

Time is 'c'

[yor_on]

It's like a regime. You can't stop time, nothing can inside this universe. Observer dependencies can't, entropy can't, which actually becomes a pretty good argument for entropy and time not being the exact same. Because you can have a system where entropy can act either way, as in some isolated patch of it.

[yor_on]

The best you can do is to put it on hold, and that is through observer dependencies. The clock rate of some other object slowing down to such a degree that it becomes impossible to see.

[yor_on]

So time has a origin, being the Big Bang, and it can't be stopped as in becoming reversed. SpaceTime then has a motion into the future.

[yor_on]

But if light doesn't propagate?
What is 'c'?

[yor_on]

You could also call it a field, of 'c', having a arrow.

[yor_on]

Quantum physically it's about probabilities. Standard theory tells us that there is a logical array or matrix of particles, interacting classically in defined ways.

[yor_on]

Even though there exist mathematical suggestions in where you theoretically could 'reverse' time (locally)  I don't expect that to be allowed. If it was allowed we would see the results of it.

[yor_on]

And , even if you 'reverse' it doesn't change the direction of your arrow. Which means that even though it's a local effect applied on a universe it also presumes not you, but the universe, to 'reverse'. That would be magic to me.

[yor_on]

Okay, if we take the idea of every frame of reference having it's own universe then? that is relativity, as soon as you stepped out of your safety zone.

[yor_on]

Yeah, but we still 'glue together' into communication, finding a same arrow? Nah, and the logic of a time reversal also open for paradoxes that only can be solved by splitting the universe you had before the reversal into a 'new' coming to be in your reversal.

Let's talk 'energy', what do you think the requirements are for a 'new' Big Bang, fast spooled forward to wherever you placed yourself temporally in this 'split' universe?

[yor_on]

Ok, there is a loophole. It's called ''many worlds' in where every outcome from probability is realized, although only one here. You might want to assume that we then just change coordinates towards a already 'existing universe'. But now we step into philosophy, and it becomes a quagmire. What defines you uniquely? Your 'soul'? If there is no soul then? The way you are and experiences? In that universe you won't have existed before, and even though you should have a twin partner there, probably if alive, you could argue that 'it's not me'.