Is time merely a concept?

Time, space, and matter are intimately connected, as you can't have one without the other. Well, actually you could conceivably have space and time without matter, but certainly not matter without space or time. Intervals of time, like: seconds, minutes, hours, etc are human constructs as a way of measuring time for practical reasons. But, yes, there is a whole lot more to it than just the mere concept of time itself-- namely, you couldn't exist without it. At least not in bodily form, anyhow. An atom is a unit of matter. I would think that matter wouldn't effect time, but time would effect matter. Black Holes are a good example of this. Beyond that we're getting in to quantum mechanics. I'm just about worthless at that point. But there are a few good minds here at EvC who could use their expertise to answer your questions with more sophistication. I don't see how that would be possible. Motion means matter. Matter means space to exist in. And time and space are basically the same thing because of the space-time continuum.I know these are hard concepts to illustrate because they are so integral that we simply take it for granted. For me, its like trying to define the word "the," without using the word "the" in the definition itself, or like using a sentence without any conjunctions at all.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

........................................ I saw incoherent ramblings. What are we supposed to make of this and how does it answer or relate to the OP?Lastly, I can't read your excerpts, so it seems useless to post them. Of those that I can read, they often have nothing to do with anything.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Yessssssss!!! Neener-neener Sorry, I'm a sore winner. I wonder if its schizophrenia. (No, I'm not being facetious). Its just all over the place with tangent after tangent. He even has tangents for his tangents. *shrugs*

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Ah, but the computation of the pythagorean theorem clearly delineates the hypotenuse from other abstractions. Could not then time materialize as an entity devoid of quantum mechanics in accordance to the Inverse Square Law?Precisely so, says Kierkegaard, which allows for the coronation to begin. Fractals, as they relate to light, shows that constant (c) is really just disambiguation of the more nocturnal states of constellations-- thus further relating to time (c).The stellar configurations seem to offer absolution in this arena, thus conforming to Mendellian genetics, and the Hawking Paradox, respectively. Quarks, however, are exculpated due to the magnification of the greater cosmological assumptions. Bertrand Russel is an excellent source for understanding these ramifications, but dare I say that so is Sir Walter Raleigh?This allowed me to extirpate with wild mastications all along the cerebral cortex, up to the cerebellum, followed by the precipitation of the corporeal quandry. Indeed, it is vexing.Clustering such protons will eventually zero out to total utilitarian systems within the time-space continuum. And as we know from Planks Time, there certainly could be circumnavigation at this juncture.But really, its all just so verbose to the point where one could not exhume the superfluous effigies that so dominates biological functions.It is decidedly so, says Lou C. Fur!So, yes, it certainly seems that time exists within the soliloquy of space, matter, tinker toys, and chemical aberrations of the ventricular portals.Could it be that the seething anomaly of the peripatus actually be mammalian, as opposed to more congruent symmetries? Alas, it is but allocation of vagaries. Because time and matter are all just paragons to be desired from more circumspect tallies anyhow.It was once asked by Linneus, "Who are you? Who? Who? Who? Who?" Clearly this postscript is a trigonometry of the upper stratosphere. LOL! As if allegory were really just antipathy!The duodenum of other distention of abdomen's is quite supercilious, insomuch that they calculate the neutrality of peripatric genetic drifts in engorged musings. Vapid, if you ask me, since its still fleshing out the ideals of post-modernism, but pre-French Revolution era.But is it symmpatric? I can't say for sure. Cladistic? Well, that much is certain.If I were a betting man, I'd find it instantly cereous, simply because we receive our emoluments via tantric excursions of a facile kind. To no avail, said Nietzsche, but only because diethyl hydrogen sulphite is mined in the upper quadrants of the Triassic period-- thus incorporating exigent circumstances.Technically, you could use calculus to also calcify the mandibular angle, which is 45 degrees, depending on the onset of, what is otherwise known as, graphical flambering. Either way, its definitely within the parameters of the crux presented by Einstein. (Though both Gould and Mayr spoke on it postmortem).That much seems obviously bloviating, even if it is baneful and elegant cosmological criterion. The fact that its cryogenic seems nothing more than hyperbole, if not reticence.Do you concur? Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Edit to addEdited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to addEdited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

How does my jousting of the harangue in this tertiary instance fraternize with you? All just joules, or also emitting radio amplitudes?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

The thing is, Brad is genuinely answering you. He is notorious for making no sense, going off on crazy tangents that haven't a thing to do with anything.I simply started a parody reminiscent of inane banter. I'm just messing around, but he is dead serious. Shocking isn't it? The point is to see if he will answer it honestly (totally missing the joke). Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake