↑ True To your first statement ; in your last statement , highlighted ; Yes Second ; Yes Wrong ; only subjectively . Temporal measurement is based on the Physical Movements of Physical Things ; as is duration . Duration is Not Measured movement . But observed movement . Time is always there , its just a Consequence of Physical Things Existence , Physical Properties , Interactions , Movements . Time on its own just has no efficacy on any of the above .
Plenty of reputable evidence in the sciences and on the net with regards to the reality of time, and its inexorable connection with space. This sort of stuff by river is nothing more then attempted trolling and flaming of science with meaningless chimpanzee like chatter.
The Cosmological Time though , is Based on the Speed of Light . So from All Galaxies , Looking at Other Galaxies , And no matter the form of measurement used , by Any Being in any Galaxy , the Speed of Light is the Same . Agreed here pad .
This thread exists, but it delivers nothing of value, effectiveness or efficacy. Perhaps if you were not so close to the problem the explanation would have been unnecessary.
It delivers alot more efficacy than you realise . My " Closeness " to this problem has nothing to do with Wanting YOUR Thinking ; Your Perspective .
If it were efficacious then that would easily realised. Since its efficacy is not apparent it is, ipso facto, non-efficacious. I didn't say it did. Your closesness to the problem was a diplomatic way of noting that you are the problem, or rather YOUR thinking is the problem.
For Pete's sake man. What a dumb question. There isn't a hint of meaning, of sense, of intent, of anything. It's just a jumble of words strung together with no rhyme or reason. It makes no sense to me because it is nonsense. The only excuse I can see for you is that you have invested those words with a wealth of background significance peculiar to you, so that when you say A, and I read it as A, you think it means ABHJEDIFHRHT. Well, it doesn't. Go take a creative writing course at a community college and then try again.
Is distance an observable? I would say yes, that's what it is. You don't have to accurately measure a distance to assert, via observation, the distance is 'real'. Now, you might argue that the distance exists because a whole lot of quantum states have collapsed to a classical state, Or Something. We assume, for perhaps no other reason than convenience, that distance and by association time, are completely passive components in dynamics: a pendulum needs space to 'operate' in, but doesn't operate on the space. No, I say, a swinging pendulum does not "operate" on distance, but leaves it unchanged. Imagine a world where, to go anywhere you have to account for distance changing because as you move, the distance changes because of some operator. As in QM, observation means changing a state, amirite? What kind of theory would explain this observation, in the above hypothetical world: even approximating the distance from A to B constitutes measurement, right?