Strange

Pressure. Supernovae. What are you talking about? I can assure you that swansont knows far more than you (and me) about the mathematical details of Einstein's theories. You guess wrong. Your comments will be left as a permanent reminder of your arrogant and ignorant opinions. But it needs to be informed discussion, not just random guesses. Myth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth Nonsense.

Please explain how you would distinguish between your model and the standard one. ​What experimental tests could measure this changing size?

I will answer again, the same way I always will: if their rulers expand with them then they will measure the distance decreasing between them. You can keep asking, but I you will keep getting the same answer. If it is not the one you want: tough. What deranged nonsense is this? I gather English is not your first language, but even making allowances for that I cannot work out what that sentence means.

No.

Light cannot be considered as a valid frame of reference for exactly this reason: it leads to division by zero and other problems. Light behaves in some ways as a wave and in some waves as a particle (basically, it is quantised). These quanta (photons) do not have mass. I don't think it has proved any such thing. I would suggest you stick to asking questions to fill the apparent gaps in your knowledge, rather than making things up.

Please explain how you would distinguish between your model and the standard one. (And stop whinging about me asking questions. I assume the reason you posted your idea was to get some criticism of it.) No.

You are right but, as it is not possible to travel at the speed of light, length doesn't become zero.

Please explain, in suitable mathematical detail, how these forces would differ with and without changing size. I have answered. Repeatedly. The fact that it is impossible to tell the difference between decreasing distance and increasing size (there: answered it again) is why your concept of changing size is irrelevant/meaningless.

So how would you be able tell the difference between everything changing size by the same amount and nothing changing size? What experiment can you do to test your idea? Do you understand that it therefore makes no difference? And that therefore your "size" is irrelevant

Please explain how the data indicating the age of the star is wrong. Otherwise you are saying we should accept your opinion. As your opinions are always wrong, no one is going to do that.

So you think they should ignore the data about the age of the star because that would be more consistent with your personal beliefs? Sorry but that isn't how science works.

Obviously if you change the size of the ruler then you will measure a different distance. But if you switch from measuring in miles to km, it doesn't mean the objects have got further apart. And, of course, changing the scale or units is not a dimension because it is not an independent value (as you have explained very well).

And that is a good thing because ... Exactly the point I thought I was making. Appears to have gone right over DivelSolution's head.... Can you provide a reference to any (serious) mathematicians engaging in numerology? Do you think people should be able to post nonsense without being challenged? How about providing some evidence for that claim. You know, as this is a science site...

And time is just a word we use to describe their temporal separation. That is a bizarre straw man argument. You have invented this "metaphysical field" and then say that is not what clocks measure. Well, obviously not, as it doesn't appear to exist. We can use regular events to measure time in the same way we use regular marks (or footsteps) to measure distance. That doesn't make distance a "metaphysical field". The same way you interpret changes in length in those circumstance: a change in the measurements from another frame of reference. You can consider this as a transformation (e.g. rotation) of the coordinate system used.

That makes no sense. Applying a force will make it move so how can you say "with no motion". Well, obviously. Despite the fact they don't move. They are still 1 m apart. Yep. Which is exactly what I said. That has nothing to do with movement or size being a dimension. In fact it explains why size is NOT a dimension. And what does any of this have to do with the thread title: the definition of time?

What do you mean, what is it made of? Why should it be made of anything? What sort of answer do you expect? "Oak, with brass trimmings and inlaid mother of pearl"? What is distance made of? What is speed made of? What is energy made of? Of course it does. Next you will be telling us that a ruler doesn't measure distance.

They haven't moved and there is no illusory perception of movement. They have just got bigger. Nonsense. Applying a force to an object does not appreciably shrink it. Nor does it accelerate is time rate. If anything, from the perception of the stationary observer, the moving objects clock slows. Er, no. That is called "perspective". Sheesh.

Yes. (What is the difference?)

I think gravity is just an opinion. Anyone agree?

(Change, maybe. But not movement.) More importantly, don't confuse the way we measure time with the way we define what it is. The use of time as a dimension in relativity, for example, does not require change or movement.

But it is still irrelevant to the OP's point. (And, I can't imagine why it would be a requirement in simulation. But start another thread if you want to explain.)

Well, that's diagnosed the problem.

If your ruler is growing, then your distances depend on the size of the ruler. This has nothing to do with the size of objects. And is the reason we choose a standard which will not change. (And if everything you could possibly use to measure size or distance changes in the same way, then that is equivalent to no change at all.) How would you tell the difference between this and no doubling in size? Or halving in size? When you arrange to meet someone, you just need to specify four coordinates. You don't need to specify their size. Because: not a dimension.

I don't see how size is relevant. The distance between two objects that are a fixed distance apart is the same however large they are.

I have never heard numerology used in that meaning. Are you thinking of Pythagoreanism (or Platonism or Mathematical Monism or ...) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Mathematical_monism