I did a search to see if this topic has been raised on these forums before but didn't come back with any hits?

Time is a pretty important thing for humanity, including science, we attempt to quantify reality around time, or by using time. We all know Einstein took time and combined it with space to produce spacetime. Some areas of science talk about time travel, time reversal symmetry and time machines.

Miles Mathis offers an explanation that came pretty close to my own thoughts:In physics, spacetime (or space–time; or space/time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

In classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, however, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of intense gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time (Wikipedia)

http://milesmathis.com/time.html

So time might be nothing more than a tool to measure movement. Which would indicate that by saying you can take space, another term used to describe universal motion (IMHO) and combine it with the tool to measure that motion is a little more than imaginative.

In classical mechanics I'm not sure how time can be universal and constant and independent of the state of motion of an observer when it is man made, not universally made and measures motion which can have varying degrees of velocity?

Maybe I've got it all wrong, but doesn't relativity need to be sectioned?

On another note I found this interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentar ... time.shtml

I'm not a lover of Michio Kaku's work but I find this interesting because it seems to show that age affects our perception of the passing of time.

Thanks