Having something to say on it is the easy bit. There are books and books on the subject, so one might think that it would be unnecessary to say more. And yet... Having something meaningful to say is another matter.

Time is a dimension and in Einsteinian theory it is in many contexts interchangeable with space dimensions. For example, when "stationary", we are travelling through time at c, the "speed of light". If we travel through space at square root of 2 times c, then we travel at the same speed through time, and so on. From that point of view the question makes as much sense as asking whether "space is something more than just the way we explain that any event occurred hither or beyond another?" I do not assert that either question is senseless, just that each seems about equally meaningful.

You say: "... nothing can happen at exactly the same moment", but thast is arguable. Two events can happen at the same "point in time" as easily as at the same "point in space". In fact for all observers to agree that they were at the same time they would have to be in the same place. If they were significantly apart, most conceivable observers would differ on their relative timing.

Anyway, as it takes events separated in time for us to perceive anything, I am not sure how you would define time stopping at all.  We are never for an hour without it.

"...so could time just be the order of everything?" That is about the same as asking whether time is just time or perhaps a consequence of time.  Would you say: "Could space be just the coordinates of objects and locations?" It would be a close equivalent, wouldn't it?

"...is it just a product of language that time cannot be explained, since the only way we can describe a progression of events is with vocabulary which is intrinsically linked to time?"

How does that differ from our definition of anything else? How would you define "left" in words that did not refer to chirality? Or "falling" in words that did not refer to to trajectory, inertia, or gravity? Or even speak coherently about subjective consciousness or "free will" in terms for which we have no cogent definition or even vocabulary? That does not enable or entitle us to ignore their objectivity.

Similarly, time and space are intrinsic to concepts derived from the empirical universe, such as F=MA. No one, not even Einstein, has yet been able to buck that one without descending into solipsism. All observers agree on it, just as all agree on the relationship between time and c.

On my song sheet that requires a good deal more than "...just a product of language..."

But perhaos you sing from another song sheet? Fine, but then you may have a good deal of work to do before you convince me of the superiority of your harmonies...

(Mmimimi...)  :-)

Jon

The places in the time scale where nothing happened are just as important as those where an identifiable event occurred. They are a place where the universe says "I'm waiting for something to happen", and an opportunity for each teenager to say "I'm Bored!".

My over-simplified answer: time is relative. Our concept of time is just a convenient way of chronicling events in a sequence. If all events stop occurring, "time" stops. Also interesting, if the thing observing time passing stops doing so, time would stop as well, for that observer. It's all perspective.

if everything stopped, and then started again, we would never know, infact it could be happening thousands of times per second, but we could never tell.

Yes. Time is the measurement of change and motion, another way to look at time is as the flow of energy. At high temperatures energy flows faster while at low temperatures energy flows much slower. At absolute zero energy would stop flowing and likewise time would stop. The laws of thermodynamics however prohibit anything from reaching absolute zero so energy will never stop flowing and time will never stop.