Thanks Bones! Your last post made me laugh.
I think you (original poster) have hit the nail on the head (as have others in this thread) about time being dependent upon change. If something doesn't change, then it doesn't experience time.

Yet, time marches on. Despite what I just said about change, it also seems to move forward, unwavering, whether or not things change. So it also seems to be separate from human perception.

I think time is one of the most fascinating topics there is. And I love reading about time travel (C.S. Lewis has an interesting take on it in "The Dark Tower" for what it's worth if anybody cares to hear).

Hi Axis Austin!

Well there is not much doubt about it if the heavenly spheres which includes that of earth governs our biology it must be from the changing states of the moving gravity of the spheres. Science tells us that time is a local matter, meaning if your in our cosmic neighbourhood then time will be experienced uniformly, in another area of the comos time would be different. Temporality certainly does seem to be an emergent quality of the music of the spheres. Time is a concept, and only humans [perhaps] form concepts, without the possiability of that which is physcial change being experienced cognitively no concept of time, it is both a biological and psychological effect, so even without cognitive perception organisms would still be effected biologically and if it is reaction which is effect, perhaps it too it is the seed of reactionary consciousness. Without a tick or without a tock I do not believe it is a clock--I've been up to late!!

On the contrary, it is suggesting that existence is 'non-local', and if 'time' exists...
See the article "Was Einstein Wrong?" (and nameless right! *__-) in the current issue of Scientific American magazine.


The top of your head ages faster than the soles of your feet by nanoseconds/year!
See; Super clocks: More accurate than time itself

nameless.

Your irritating, but perhaps its a pearl in the making, I'll try to get a handle on what your saying.

"The growth of the soul in man is as that of a pearl in an oyster, both caused by irritation!" - Plato

:detective:1."Clock" is a fixed mathematical tool which guages observable and non-observable change from 12am-12pm Jan-Dec, apon a fixed "Time Line" (Yearly Scale).

And therefore a "Time Line" is a record of change/non-change from a single point of change/non-change within the "Clock System", and therefore "Time" is just the observation/non-obervation of change/non-change within the "Clock System"

Yet a thing that dose not change in anyway, shape, or form in its states of existence, will still have a "age" if applied to the "clock system" regaurdless of no change's in its state's of existence.

The Three State's Of Change.
1.What a thing was. (Past)
2.What a thing is. (Present)
3.What a thing will be. (Future)

It seem's these comments in this thread are simply repeats of other threads about time...

Yet to non-circularly define time?

Due to the fact that the "clock system" repeats the cycle of the future becoming the present as the present becoming the past, seems to be not possible unless to do.

:detective:It seem's like this question is a question that makes you think of what it is, by asking you a question about what it cant be. (Somthing I would do as a teacher)

:rolleyes:So to answer that question and get that extra cred, you would have to logicaly denote that the future dosnt become the present and the present dosnt become the past, since that is the cycle.
_____________________________________________________
"How can you define time as non-circular?"

:)Here's a hint for the answer of that question
What kind of time can be made to not complet that cycle?
Where dose a line end?

(*note:rolleyes: I will answer it on monday if someone dosent)

The Time On A Fixed Time Line Can Be Defined As Non-curcilar