Is time simply the rate of change?
If this is the case and time was created during the big bang would it be the case that the closer you get to the start of the big bang the "slower" things change until you essentially approach a static, unchanging entity at the beginning of creation?
Also, to put this definition in relation to Einstein's conclusions that "observers in motion relative to one another will measure different elapsed times for the same event." : Wouldn't it be the case that saying the difference in elapsed time is the same as saying the difference in the rate of change.
With this definition there is no point in describing the "flow" of time or the "direction" of time because time doesn't move forward but rather things simply change according to the laws of physics.
Edit: Adding clarification based on @neil's comments:
The beginning of the big bang would be very busy, but if time was then created if you go back to the very beginning it seems there is no time and there is only a static environment.
So it seems to me that saying time has a direction makes no sense. There is no direction in which time flows. There is no time; unless time is defined as change.
So we have our three dimensional objects: and then we have those objects interact. The interaction is what we experience as time. Is this correct or is time more complicated than this?