Maybe I was too quick re: alleging proof Dr. Dick correct.
True, is Dr. Dick saying rulers don't measure space? Could be right.
Einstein may be right; just he may be approximately right in the generalisation way that math allows.
You are looking at the sky. Between the "tick" and the next "tock" of your watch; you see two supernovae appear in the sky.
According to your watch, they were simulataneous.
However that simultaneity was relative; as it turns out that one of the supernovae was twice as far away as the other.
As far as I know; "time" is when things happen from the observer's perspective; "proper time" takes into account the distances of the supernovae from the observer and from each other.
Do clock's measure time, or just measure the observer's perspective (his reference frame) itself? In a self-referencing way?
Now: when, during the gap between the "tick" and the "tock", did the supernovae go off? Can you always imagine a narrower gap to confine these observations within?
Does this mean you can not measure time other than as somewhere "within two boundaries"?
What if you bring the supernovae closer and miniturise them; so that one of them IS the "tick" and the other IS the "tock" of your watch?
Now: you are still taking their distance from each other into account: because now they are not WITHIN the "tick" and "tock" of your watch; they ARE the "tick" and "tock" of your watch.
The distance of one supernova-tick is now zero distance from the "tick" of your watch (as it IS the "tick" of your watch), but "tick-tock" distance from the supernova-tock. And the supernova-tock is zero distance from the "tock" of your watch, as it IS the "tock" of your watch; but "tock-tick" distance from the "tick" of your watch.
So doesn't this prove that "tick, tock" is proper time?
Instead of "events in space"; is it "the space of events"? Does change happen in space, or does change create space? Or do they both create each other as a structure of self-reference, of consciousness?
Consciousness appears to create both?
A moving clock will have to self refer its next "tick-tock" to its previous to maintain consistency; so will generate a sum of its history along its trajectory.
A complex event would be constructed of the relative differences in proper-time of the constituent events; so will involve summing the various histories; comparing and matching patterns QED style; to get the final event?
When you match two rulers, you assume zero time (simultaneous matching). Does this effectively convert the time between the two ends of the ruler being matched (with two ends of another ruler) to the distance betwen the two ends?
Do rulers only measure proper distance (that is, always take the time-at-each-ruler-end relative the other end into account?)
Time involves matching something to being within a tick-tock gap; each end of the ruler is matched with the end-to-end gap of the ruler itself?
Not within the gap; but exact; so forces an exact comparison of the time at each of the ruler. Thus time taken into account; making the ruler measure proper distance?
This is still not satisfactorily figured out.
Bit of a jungle.