[Bill S]

Thanks imatfaal. I was using "subjective" in the sense of relating to the inherent nature of a person or thing, in this case the individual F of R.

Wouldn't it be great to have a language in which each word had only one meaning.

[simplified]

Interesting
              http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html

[imatfaal]

Bill

no it would be really boring!   [] 

And I don't like even your revised definition  [B)]  If something is inherent in an object - then it should be capable of being measured in an objective manner (though it isn't necessarily done objectively - observer might skew data to fit her pet theory: ie subjective) .  I do however know exactly the sense/meaning you are using - I just don't think subjective is the right word - and I cannot think of the right word

[simplified]

I would like to know borders of local time in a kinematic field  [?]

[imatfaal]

I am sorry simplified - I just cannot follow your arguments/quesions

[king5118]

Light is a human invention and is linked to the past and future, but you are quite right in saying that it is also linked to light. If we hadn't invented time we would still rely on the sun and moon to measure our activities throughout the day and night. People get so wrapped up with time and forget that as an invention by us it can be abused and used to explain so many things. I would say that the main focus of our attention should be distance and not time. It is theoretically possible to travel faster than light and just takes someone to come up with the idea.

[king5118]

If our sun didn't exist and the stars that we can see were using the light of their own galaxies then could we still say that they were in the past? Or is it relative to where we are in conjunction with them.

[Bill S]

no it would be really boring!

Of course it would be boring if a language in which each word had only one meaning were the only language we had, but there could be advantages to having a sort of techno-speak in which everyone could agree on definitions.   

[Bill S]

It is theoretically possible to travel faster than light and just takes someone to come up with the idea.

Relativity does not preclude travelling at superluminal speed.  My understanding is that serious problems arise if you try to accelerate from sub- to super-luminal speed.  are you saying that that is theoretically possible?

[Bill S]

If our sun didn't exist and the stars that we can see were using the light of their own galaxies then could we still say that they were in the past? Or is it relative to where we are in conjunction with them.

I'm not sure that I follow this.  What difference would the absence of our sun make to the scenario?
The fact that we see distant stars, galaxies etc. as they were in the past is due to the length of time their light takes to reach us.  This even applies to our sun; we see it as it was about 8 mins ago.
Could it be that we create some of our own problems by thinking of time as "flowing"?  It might be simpler (some hopes  [])to think of time as static, and ourselves as travelling through it.

[simplified]

Moving cannot be without time.

[Ron Hughes]

Suppose that the Universe consisted of only a single electron, would time exist? The quick answer would be no because nothing is moving with respect to anything else.That is not entirely true and I will explain if anyone asks. Now suppose we insert another electron, that is in motion WRT the other electron, into the Universe. Now there are two electric fields in our hypothetical Universe and they are changing with WRT each other. Time is any change WRT something else.

[Bill S]

Suppose that the Universe consisted of only a single electron, would time exist? The quick answer would be no because nothing is moving with respect to anything else.That is not entirely true and I will explain if anyone asks.

Explanation, please.

[CPT ArkAngel]

The event horizon of a particle or a black hole is defining the 0 timerate of it. Gravity around it defines the local timerate. According to photon Theory, there is a point in the middle (not really a singularity but due to symmetry of the gravitational field) where the timerate is 0. This point will move according to interference with the event horizon from outside fields.

[Ron Hughes]

(Play like) you were an entity capable of creating space/time and the matter that makes our Universe. Instead you create only a single electron which would include it's electric field. At the instant you create it that electric field would start expanding at C, This expanding field would obey the inverse square law which would mean that time and space started at the instant the electron was created.

[Bill S]

Thanks R H.  Just to make sure we are not running into Mark McCutcheon's expanding electrons [)], it is only the electric field that expands?

[Ron Hughes]

Yes the field is what expands. If you somehow move the electron that will create a photon. You could ask, move it with respect to what? The answer is move it with respect to the expanding field that started from it's original position.

[Bill S]

If you somehow move the electron that will create a photon.

Is that because you would have to hit the electron with something to move it, and the collision would "create a photon"? 
Would it matter what you used to hit the electron?

[Ron Hughes]

Just the act of moving it in any way see this,  http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34333.0;topicseen , and this. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34754.msg328711#msg328711

[simplified]

Propagation of my time definition:
   "Time is quantity of motion"  []