Lol. Yeah you caught me, I didn’t bother to link you to the frame of reference wiki page nor do I have any intention of teaching you basic physics.

I’m not going to sit here and explain basic physics to you. Learn it or don’t, I don’t care. Some basic reading comprehension would help too. Just know that you are embarrassing yourself.

Locally is a frame of reference. You need a source for basic physics you clown?

The irony of calling me pedantic after this bad faith interpretation of my point. You are not a serious person.

It’s adorable that you think this makes what I said incorrect.

In fact, please direct yourself to the subheadings about “the causal arrow of time”

It does though friend. It describes the consequence of the laws of physics in action.

>"Change" is quite abstract.

That has literally been my point lmfao.

>Neither answer of course explain how the result of an equation can be equivalent to one of it's factors.

Nonsense.

Lolol can you really not see how one can be an umbrella term that describes the effects from our pov while the other is the underlying mechanism? Come on buddy, stop pretending it’s that hard to parse.

I wouldn’t use the word “crazy” but I’d assert this is a reading comprehension issue on your end. They are “essentially” the same. They are not the same. I have explained why. Change is a less precise term.

Lol what?

Look you are missing the point. Change is just a clumsy way to describe something because it depends too much on reference frames and is a less precise way to describe the fact that time is just the measure of causality. “Change” is the result of causality. When you just say “change” you are missing the fundamental driver of change which is the interaction of forces that cause things to change. The speed of causality (time) is affected by the frame of reference and forces themselves.

>locally

No it isn’t.

Lol the correct one. Seriously you must not have much actual exposure to modern physics.

I don’t think that differentiates those things like you think it does. That “critique,” in so far as it actually has any validity, applies to the two words equally. The problem with change is that locally things aren’t always changing.

>Eh, you don't really need time to observe 2 different states.

Not exactly sure what you mean by this.

>Time is most useful as a metric for rates of change.

I disagree. I think change is simply a less precise way to sum up causality. Things “change” over time because from t1 to t2 a force caused a change in state. The progression of time is “required” for forces to act on things.

I have always preferred “causality” but it is essentially the same.