Greetings to everyone, i am new here so please excuse any errors i did in posting this thread. ( Please also excuse my english ).
First off i would like to say i am just a young science lover with no deep understanding of anything in physics, which i love and try to explore in every way possible.
One concept i've always been interested in is time. Initially, as everyone i suppose, i viewed time as an absolute and costant background in which events happened. After reading many books about Einstein and the theories of relativity my newtonian view changed and time started for me being "something", i immagined time as a texture of reality and of space (to be honest i could'nt immagine time existing without space, which i always represent, probably in a wrong way, in my mind as made of Calabi–Yau extra dimensions described by string theory ). In the past couple of years however, i started questioning the existence of time itself :
1) How can time be described without movement or changes ? A white ball in a black space with nothing else made for me impossible to describe time if not as a curvature of the einstein fabric of space-time. I would need 2 balls to describe time properly by having reference points.
2) If time exists, it would need to be composed of something let's say a particle which i call "Timeon". Well that particle of time would need to exist in a time in order to be described as existing. How can that happen ? The same thought can be applied when viewing time in the Einstein way.
Seems to me now that time dosen't exist, it is just a model which our brain uses to describe changes. This would mean Einstein and its incredibly empirically proven theories would be a wrong description of something else , which is a big sentence to say and one aspect i can't resolve.
What am i missing?
Sorry for any blasphemy i might have said, i am just trying to understand.