Time objective is one of the forces that drives all systems to change. If there were a system that never changed that system would transcend time.

Time relative is the measurement of the amount of that force (time abstract) which is required in a system to produce a certain change (relative to other forces in that system).
i.e In the iterative system of the earth's change in position relative to the sun we get the idea of what a year is.
or velocity=distance/time

I like your concept of time being the force behind change. However, I can't help but notice that you don't have an actual theory that explains how the presence of time would result in the change of the system.

[INDENT]I like your concept of time being the force behind change. However, I can't help but notice that you don't have an actual theory that explains how the presence of time would result in the change of the system.

I think I can help. Instead of seeing time as a force separate from systems, I see it as an inherent property present in all sub-atomic, i.e. quantum, particles. Now, when you think about it, a sub-atomic particle can exist in two states: a particularite state, and a field-like state.

I believe the particle state to be, in essense, the very representation of a moment in time, that is, sub-atomic particles in the particle like state only occur when they are interacting with something, like, say, a photonn detector.

On the other hand, the field like state of a photon is tantamount to an accumulation of all possible future states, one of which will occur at precisely the moment when the particle interacts with something else.

In other words, a photon as a field can be said to be in the "past/future" state, seeing as how it represents all possible states. Any one of those states will become the present as the photon interacts with, say, a retina. And as the particle photon exists only for a moment in time, we could say that as a photon is a particle is precisely the unit of time.

When we scale the countless interactions of subatomic particles, we see that time isn't universal at all, but rather changes according to the mass of particles in space. Thus, scaled over billions and billions of interactions, you, in essense, get change to occur in the universe at a rate quite identical to that of einsteinian relativity.

In this sense do I feel that time is not a force on it's own, but a property that is inherent in the structure of reality.

Questions? Comments?:detective:
[/INDENT]

I heard an interesting 'definition' once, might have been I. Asimov;
"Time is the measure of distance between two events."
(The perception of 'time' is a 'local' relic of linear sequential Perspective (appearances).)

So if an event happen in my front yard, and another event happens 100 miles away at the same moment, then the 100 miles between the two events is time??

I think your definition (or Asimov's) needs a little work. A measure of the distance of what?

I think that Bones is right!
-about the assignment.
-about a definition of time being circular by nature
-about a definition of space having the same infuriating quality

Thanks Bones

The assignment is over and been turned in I'll post later the exact def. I used and the grade, just for anyone interested.

I would say "a filing system used for relating our memories of events in sequences, according to the order in which they occured."