does time exist? i say it does

is it a human construct? some people say time doesn't exist or is an illusion. the idea being that we simply exist, and we have a way to measure from one moment to the next, but that doesn't mean there's something 'moving' when we are just 'existing'. 

but the reason i'd say time exists, is because if you go at light speed or around black holes, you would age at a different rate. maybe time should be considered the fourth dimension, after all. 

what do all ya'll think? 

i asked google, and it said "Among physicists, there is no real doubt that time doesreally, truly exist. It's a measurable, observable phenomenon. Physicists are just divided a bit on what causes this existence, and what it means to say that itexists.Jun 22, 2019". 

so that is what you're arguing against, too, if u argue wit me. 

This is pretty cut in stone physics. That there is a continuum of events is rationally undeniable, and that's what the word "time" describes.

If time exists, it is inaccurately applied. We apply it so poorly, we must add one "day" every four "years" to our "calendar," just to justify that inaccurate calendar, yet we can split "seconds" into billionths. Why don't we just apply a different measure? Why not? Because, we find, we cannot depend on a consistent orbit around the sun to last an identical amount of "time," each "year." So, with all those inaccuracies, convince me that "time" is a dependable  constant. And what would a rogue black hole, wandering through the universe, do to our "time" should it approach? Time is so far from being a constant, why do we fool ourselves that it is? Because we are schedule driven rather than accomplishment driven.

us orbiting the sun is just how we measure time. it's arbitrary. we could measure time with twenty four hours a day and if that doesn't coincide with our sun exactly, it's still a viable way to measure. what doesn't depend on measurement, is the fact that something changes with every passing moment. 

My problem is that you are satisfied by the inaccuracy of that "moment." That "moment" is so fundamental to our entire dichotomy of scientific endeavor, it is shocking that our standardization of it is so inaccurate. What does that say for our contemplation of a relatively infantile science such as climatology?  Not much. Certainly not sufficient for "science" to declare that we are doomed. As if we don't embrace an ability that is entirely timeless: adaptability. How the hell can we measure that by a tick-tock? Yet, the Paris Accord has declared it. 

When we arrive on Mars, we will discover the remnant of an ancient civilization that declared their impeding doom. They called it 'climate change," and they did not avoid de-frocking St. Darwin, either. All because of a tick-tock they also constructed poorly; perhaps because they also believed it was real.

As MisterChris rightly states.

Material events can occur, so there is time.

Time is an intangible reality, so as such does not tangibly exist.

We measure the duration of events....Rather than time itself.

Would one use a rule to measure time?

As a clock with nothing else to be regarded, will only measure the duration of it's own existence. 

I tried to understand general relativity one time bored in work, unfortunately I'm no Einstein. I'm halfways confident though, that no matter the perception of time, the universe as a whole is going through the motions in a sensible fashion. That would be the larger time I guess. Why it's doing that who knows. God flicked a marble. 

We know time exists because the entropic nature of the universe only operates in one direction. The second law of thermodynamics is the only law of physics that doesn't look the same going backwards as it does forward, and this gives us our unidirectional concept of time.

It's a unit of measurement. It is just as silly to say time does not exist as it is to say weight or inches don't exist

Time is a dimension, it’s is not really significantly different in nature from any of our other dimensions.

The only aspect that makes time different from length, is that entropy increases with time.

The key to understanding how we perceive time is In asking the question - why can’t you remember things that haven’t happened yet?

At the time an event occurs your brain creates order in the universe to encode the memory in your neurons, but adds More disorder from expending energy. If this encoding went backwards in time, then the order would be present, but the disorder would not; violating the second order of thermodynamics.

So it’s this entropic principle (as someone mentioned) that governs our perception of time as a linear set of events - when really its not much different from length.

For researchers reviewing these posts 500 years from now, I just want to say that time does not exist. When we ask ourselves why we think time exists, most of us would say: because we see everything changing, always. And so it is: everything in and around us is constantly changing, from beginning until the end.
The question however is: is the reason for this perpetual change to be found outside the changing subject (caused by a phenomena called time) or is all change coming from inside the changing subject itself?
I don’t think that it is hard to see that the latter is correct. That which makes things change (the cycle of life) to a flower, a human being or an animal is set by the characteristics of that particular life’s form and not by an outer cause such as time. What we call ‘time’ is just a method for measuring the ‘perpetual change’.
Because of our need to measure this perpetual change we decided to divide the ‘cyclic changes’ such as seasons and day and night, into months, twenty-four hours, minutes etc. These well-known changes are caused by the ever-moving planetary positions within our solar system and not because there exists such a thing as ‘time’.

As I stated.

It is possible for events to occur and have a duration.

And out of necessity we refer to it as something.

If nothing was hear to perceive events, then what would care to refer to it as something?

Yes, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality.

Two primary kinds of time:

1} Metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concept of time as 2nds, minutes, etc from here to there or eternal existence of time,

now...................................space(>*<) i  (>*<)space.................now

<<<<<<Past<<<<<<<<Out<<<<<flow-of-time<<<<In<<<<<<<<Future

2} observed time aka quantization of time as particles { occupied space } ----electrons, photons, mesons etc---- with discrete quantum property values.

Probably.

And I mean that sincerely.

You seem to be saying the same as me, but in your own inimitable way.

Events, duration and the ability to perceive.

...."Our understanding of zero is profound when you consider this fact: We don’t often, or perhaps ever, encounter zero in nature."....LINK

..." Nevertheless, zero doesn’t have to exist to be useful. In fact, we can use the concept of zero to derive all the other numbers in the universe."....

.............................space(>*<)  i  (>*<)space....................... where  i is ego identity mind/intellect/concepts

My i asks a question, what happens if the drop-in's { >< }    -----defines the sine-wave pattern { observed time /\/\/ } inside the toroidal tube----    from outer { positive } and inner { negative } --and diametrically  opposed---  geodesic curvatures as space, in the term space-time/

More specifically, my question to self is, if the sine-wave patterrning --inside the tube subsides{ retreats } into the two curvature surfaces, and those two curvatures expand create a larger, volumetric  space inside, what is in that space?

....space(>time<)(> time<)space.......>........space(                 )(                )space.........>.....space(>time>)(>time<)space.........

....space( /\/\/ )( /\/\/ )space.......>........space(                 )(                )space.........>.....space(/\/\/ )( /\/\/)space..............