Hey Boyos, it's shillelagh law here right? I thought this was supposed to be orderly and civil venue. You are acting like a couple of unruly Kerrymen at the horse fair. Maybe, just possibly a thing such as time could be viewed in a way that you are both correct but determined to disagree. So to show how little dignity I have, I'll throw in my two cents and let you do what a self-respecting Kerryman would do, call a truce, join up and direct you ire at me and team up and give me what for. Of course time is an abstraction. It must be until you find a way to bottle some up and take to the lab for manipulation and experiment. We measure it by convention that we a priori agree to agree on. But it is also a real facet of our physical world and universe. It can't be removed from any meaningful measure fundamental physics. You can not describe motion with out some version of time to relate duration, causality, or change of any physical condition. You can not designate a complete location without a time component. So since you can't bottle it up to remove to the lab, it will remain an abstract reality. Don't hold me to this, I got it 2nd hand, but I think it comes from Sean Carroll. Time is: 1) A co-ordinate to specify a place in spacetime. (Left-right, up-down, in-out AND when to indicate causality.) 2) A measure of duration between two events, or the duration of an event. (The tick of a clock, a heartbeat, or the decay of a particle, etc,,,, 3) Something that all the universe moves through (or flows past depending on your vantage point) with only a single direction (entropy). I think you are both correct, but if you enjoy whacking each other with philosophical shillelaghs, have at it.