Laws of Conservation?

Time is a part of the universe, itself, not something that the universe exists within. Time doesn't exist if the universe doesn't exist.

Yeah, that's incorrect. Its not an assumptions, it a conclusion. And it comes from general relativity. Time is a dimension of the universe. Just like up-down, left-right, forward-backwards are all spatial dimension, time too is a dimension (but not a spatial one). Matter and energy exist within the dimensions so questions about them vs. time don't make much sense.You could look at the wiki page on spacetime for plenty of stuff to read and learn about.Have fun with it.

No, not infinite. The implication is that it is unbounded.Spacetime is a 4d manifold that is finite but it is also unbounded.For an anology of what that means, consider the surface of the Earth (just the surface). The surface of the Earth is a 2d manifold that is also finite yet unbounded. It is finite because there not an infinite amount of surface, but since you could walk in a straight line forever, it is unbounded.

That is simply not true. You are espousing out-of-date ideas. We know this because of Time Dilation.You need to catch up to the times. I suggest starting here or here.Come back with any questions you have after you catch up to the fact that time is real and perceptable and not just infered from the presence of motion. Absolute stasis does not exist. Again, you are just plain wrong. These are outdated ideas that have been refuted. You need to catch up.Again, wikipedia is going ot be your best starting point. Look here too.Here's some images that I feel help conceptualize the idead:Space as a real something: The grid is space ans it is something. See how mass can bend space, itself?Time as a real something:

quote:

---

Evolution of a world line of an accelerated massive particle. This worldline is restricted to the timelike top and bottom sections of this spacetime figure and can not cross the top (future) nor the bottom (past) light cone. The left and right sections, outside the light cones are spacelike.

---

See how the time 'expands' and 'collapses'?

Got a link where I can read up on that?At first glance, it simply having a velocity seems to suggest that it really isn't absolute stasis. Seriously!? I think you're just being nice.He said that time is inferred from motion and then that in an absolute stasis there wouldn't be time. He was obviously talking about massive objects and them stopping from moving.And I don't even think he's talking about 0 Kelvin... Maybe I don't know what absolute stasis is....Does time not being observed even imply absolute stasis? I can see absolute stasis implying time not being observed but visa versa I'm not seeing it.