I think the argument was that if time could be altered, which the article proved, then time must exist because how can we alter something that doesn't exist.
Ok, perhaps I should not have quite so quickly appeared to "dismiss" your posts. What I meant was, if we are to use your posts as a form of evidence, then the topic at hand is going to broaden way past the idea of time existing, because we will have to decide if gravity exists, and this, I feel, will really take us away from the topic in a severe way. I will assume gravity and black holes exist in what I say next.
I feel that its not time that gravity is changing, but the actual properties of whatever it is you might use to measure it.
Say we shoot a clock at the speed of light around the sun and back to earth and we find that the clock has measured time faster because of this, I would argue that it was not time that actually passed
quicker, but the clock that was altered i.e. its mechanism or ability to measure anything.
If we run towards a black hole then measurement of distance will become unusable, because black holes are meant to quite literally break down space-time around it. I say space-time because its easy to understand what we both mean that way.
For me, time exists in the fashion that we measure the passing of one point to the next. How we measure that time can be completely different. I could measure it using a scale of seconds or a scale of my choosing e.g. how long it takes for me to throw the clock up and catch it again. I will call this new measurement Logocatches
Problem is I would need to throw it with the precise same force and in the precise same circumstance exactly. This is why I might actually stick to seconds :P
Seconds or distance do not actually change, ever. They can only be unusable as a measurement because, in the case of a black hole, we cannot actually measure anything, for reasons I will likely never understand, but we could, technically, still measure it if we we omnipotent and could completely negate the effects of the black hole on our measuring device.
An inch is still and inch. A second is always a second. Its absolute and relative to our point of reference.
Gah! I dont even know if any of that makes proper sense!
By the way, I'm also glad that we are on the same page now AnaLoGMunKy
So am I
tim is r33l
Ok, I bow to your well studied, thought out argument :P
(are we talking about tim the sorcerer here? from monty python)
