What about the fundamental idea that space without objects would not exist. Without objects to be spatially related there would be no space, just a solid void. And time is only existent to conscious beings. Time being the product of motion seems likely. If all things in the universe were static there would be no change, and there for no time because there would be no moment when something had changed. Which is what time is all about right? Being able to express to another person when something has moved/changed/appeared/disappeared. So time is only existent in a non-static universe , and only relevant to conscious beings.
Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts mergedWhat about the fundamental idea that space without objects would not exist. Without objects to be spatially related there would be no space, just a solid void. And time is only existent to conscious beings. Time being the product of motion seems likely. If all things in the universe were static there would be no change, and there for no time because there would be no moment when something had changed. Which is what time is all about right? Being able to express to another person when something has moved/changed/appeared/disappeared. So time is only existent in a non-static universe , and only relevant to conscious beings.
"i think that, no, time doesnt only pass if an observer is there to see it"
Well, if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? If you are saying that time exists without a viewer then you are forgetting the whole point of science. Science is a tool of man and only man. A tree falling in the forest does not make a sound. A sound is only a sound to something that can hear, otherwise it just makes vibrations. So, without a viewer there is no time simply by time's definition.
