[yor_on]

Let's propagate to something entirely different, namely light and its 'propagation'

Sascha express it so nicely in this post. " Quantum Perspective On The Non-Existence Of Light "
https://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/quantum_perspective_nonexistence_light-76047

[yor_on]

If you accept the fundamentals presented by Sacha, then look back at our definition from relativity. That light always will present you with a same 'speed' no matter your 'relative motion' relative some other reference frame, and that it always will hold locally defined. Then that should tell you something about constants.

[yor_on]

They are local

[yor_on]

And if you now translate it into the universe you observe with your own eyes, what is your experience?
Local or global?

[yor_on]

where is the global representation situated?

[yor_on]

You will need to introduce the 'eyes of a god' to get to that one.
A 'outside' instead of inside

[yor_on]

But that doesn't seem to bother people

[yor_on]

It's a similarity to the way a geodesic is, according to relativity. The 'straightest path' between two points. Which means that all planets suns asteroids etc all go in straight paths in a 'curved space'.

that doesn't bother you either :)

You don't think that way, but if you did, and then tried to 'unfold' this 'SpaceTime'? Remember that you will, to get to this global representation of only straight paths, have to count in every mass motion that exist according to your observations.

[yor_on]

I can't even imagine how that would look. And as it is SpaceTime you also will need to adjust for time, aka local clocks. You can always use your own as a definition of the others, but then again, so can they, use their own I mean. Which means that they will give your clock different representations, depending on their own mass and relative motion.

[yor_on]

You combine those two and what do you get? A chaotic universe, that is if you define it from a ' global ' point of view. If you do it locally though using 'c' as your definition of a constant, then all clocks are equivalent.

[yor_on]

So what is a light path?
does it exist?

[yor_on]

What exist is emitting and annihilating. The propagation is a measure of the time we locally define that to take in a locally defined geometry.

[yor_on]

Looked at this way 'c' becomes your clock, and mine, and everything else clock too. and they are in a balance versus each other, they are in a equivalence, just as 'c' is.

[yor_on]

And I'm not entirely sure about what I'm going to propose but it seems to me that geometry is connected to ones local clock. actually I'm pretty sure about that one, in one way, but it's when I start to wonder about its implications that it becomes really weird.

[yor_on]

We take one point, put it into a space and watch it. It may not evolve but it takes time.

[yor_on]

It's also so that if we place that point in a strongly 'curved space' aka near a neutron star, its local clock slows down relative our own.

[yor_on]

So this infinitesimal point, does it have a local clock?
How was it with that photon, did it have one?

[yor_on]

To me there seem to be a strong connection between scales and time. And a scale needs a geometry, doesn't it?

[yor_on]

What we can state though is that this global representation you get to by watching a universe doesn't exist. It's local definitions all of them. so discussing the universe as 'one thing' doesn't really make sense.

[yor_on]

and that is a fact, take a look at NIST if you don't believe me.