Originally posted by @ogb
many scientists believe that all "time" is present right now....
If what you mean by "all "time" " is ""all points of time in past present and future", as far as I can judge, I think that is probably false i.e. it isn't true that "many scientists believe that". That is because it just seems too obvious to me that to say any past point in time and any future point in time is "present right now" i.e. exists in the present is to either imply all points in time equate as being the same point in time, which is clearly false else there would be no difference between past present and future, or is to imply each point in time is contained 'in' the present point in time.
But a past point in time or a future point in time isn't 'in' the present point in time because no point in time is 'in' some other point in time. If a point in time has to be 'in' some other point in time to exist, what would that other point in time that holds that point in time within it have itself to be 'in' to exist? -yet another point of time? I see an infinite regress here. Somehow I doubt most scientists would be so confused as to get into that infinite regress.
Past, present,future is all part of space/time.
That is like saying time is part of spacetime. But time isn't the whole of spacetime; you still need space.
What if our earth didn't rotate at all? Would we stand "still" in time?
Really not sure but I think you just might be confusing how we know
time is passing with time passing; the two things don't equate.