[PmbPhy]

My definition only implicitly requires the concept of time.

I’m fascinated by the idea that the concept of time is “only implicitly” required.  Does that mean that your definition does not require a time concept?  If so, how does it work if any movement/change is involved?

That's the main problem with his and others definition. It requires the concept of motion/change which are defined in terms of time. Thus it's a circular definition and fails as one. I.e. time is defined in terms of motion/change which is defined in terms of time.

There's a book called The Philosophy of Space and Time by Hans Reichenbach, Dover Pub. which some might find interesting to read.

[talanum1]

The definition: "time is what a clock measure" is circular since a clock has to be calibrated, hence you need time to define time. With an atomic clock the definition: "x oscillations per second" is circular since oscillation requires motion.

My definition is just implicitly circular. I guess it is circular then.

[PmbPhy]

The definition: "time is what a clock measure" is circular since a clock has to be calibrated, ...

Wrong. A clock need not e calibrated. It can merely be built and used it's primary time interval as the unit of time. Do I need to explain what a primary time interval is? Think about a pendulum clock.

[talanum1]

A clock's parts move, which implies time: circular.

One needs a dynamic input to define time, by basic reasoning.

[Bored chemist]

One needs a dynamic input to define time, by basic reasoning.

That doesn't actually mean anything.

[Bill S]

My definition is just implicitly circular. I guess it is circular then.

If that is seriously intended as an answer to the questions in #279, there is probably little point in asking any more questions. 

[Bill S]

Do I need to explain what a primary time interval is?

Reason v dogmatic thinking?  You could be on to a looser, there, Pete.

[talanum1]

I’m fascinated by the idea that the concept of time is “only implicitly” required.  Does that mean that your definition does not require a time concept?  If so, how does it work if any movement/change is involved?

If I use time in the definition of time the definition is circular. As I stated: a dynamical input is needed. This makes any definition of time circular.

How are you going to define time in only static terms?

[Bill S]

How are you going to define time in only static terms?

That depends on what you mean by "static terms".  If you mean there is no motion/change in the Universe, then time has no meaning, or role in the scenario, and therefore no definition.

The question would then arise as to whether a totally static universe is even a physical possibility.

[talanum1]

That depends on what you mean by "static terms".

I mean: words and concepts not using motion/change.

If you mean there is no motion/change in the Universe, then time has no meaning, or role in the scenario, and therefore no definition.

So, it's impossible to define time in static terms?

[Bill S]

So, it's impossible to define time in static terms?

Whatever may, or may not, be possible mathematically; I would be interested to see a practical example.

[Bill S]

http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/other-aspects-of-time/eternity-and-immortality/

I’m not recommending this as a good read.  IMO it is an emporium of philosophical and religious verbosity. Even so, it includes one or two points that may be worthy of comment.  Eg:

  However, if time actually is quantized, it is likely to be at the level of Planck time (about 10^-43 seconds), the smallest possible length of time according to theoretical physics, and probably forever beyond our practical measurement abilities.

If time is just the conventional measure we apply to duration between changes; one has to wonder, in what sense it could be quantized.  Appealing to the concept of Planck time does not really make any difference, as Planck time has no special significance beyond theoretical calculations.