Time does not exist. Period

You're contradicting yourself. In one breath you say that "time does not exist." But then you admit that it exists as a measurement. I believe you' re quite right; time has no other function except as a measurement. But that, potentially, still gives it a n immense amount of flexibility.

Please define "exist[s]."

Please learn to read applying the whole context. In my message I stated that time don't exist as a physical entity. This is to say, time is not objective.

The concept of time (subjective) can exist as an idea, but can't dilate. I gave an example in another topic here where time is discussed as well.

You have the measurement called "weight". Your body weights 150 lbs. You start to eat a lot, and you ended weighting 240 lbs. What Einstein is telling you with his Relativity? Lol... Einstein is telling you that you have never gained weight but that weight itself (the measurement) is now more heavier... ha ha ha...

What a stupid argument this theory of Relativity.

For this reason, the best is to come back to your sanity, and recognize that time is nothing but a measurement and can't dilate at all but that the clocks (physical objects) are the ones affected by motion and change of environment.

Keep in mind that 10 million dollars have been offered to the first one proving the physical existence of time, the status of time before and after its assumed dilatation, the explanation of the mechanism causing its dilatation.

No one has collected the offer, because the whole thing about time dilatation is nothing but fraud. People have been deceived with abstract numbers explaining a subjective result, however, no theory is valid without the explanation of the mechanism, and Relativity lacks of this essential explanation.

Time, is the comparison of motion of bodies, where at least one motion must be regular. This is all what time is about, and the rest is pure fantasies, otherwise, collect yourself the ten million dollars.

I tell you what carlos. I will give you 10 million dollars if you can prove that it's a malfunction and not time dilation.

Such proof should mean you can show that a majority of atomic clocks built in one environment then put in another environment do not show similar time dilation. By your argument they should all keep different times even though they are in the same environment. If they all "malfunction" the same then you give me $10 million because you will have proven time dilation is predicable.

Try the following. Buy cheap watches. Be sure they have new batteries and set all of them (at least five) at the same time in a room set at 70 degrees. Have them working in the same room for a week to check that they work fine and no variation in timing is observed. Then, put one of them inside the freezer compartment.

Next day, compare the timing data of the watch inside the refrigerator with the rest of watches. You will notice that the one exposed to cold temperatures will suffer a delay of 6 seconds (this is the average amount of seconds shown in one of the already made experiments; this timing variation might be different with your watches). On the second day, the same 6 seconds delay will be shown, and so forth for the next days. It will be a "regular" period of delay every day.

Remove the watch from inside the freezer compartment of the refrigerator and replace it by a second watch. You will observe the same timing variation (6 seconds) in this watch when compared to the rest of watches located in the other room.

The lunatic will say that time dilates with cold weather, but you know that such claim is a complete stupidity. The cause of such regular 6 seconds delay is caused by the change of environment to which the watch is exposed.

The same "regular timing dilatation" is observed in every atomic clock exposed to a different environment other than the one where they were calibrated in their manufacturing. It is not that "time dilates" but that the clock itself simply suffers of malfunction.

Notice that the claim about atomic clocks is that they have been tested against temperature and pressure, but, they have never been tested against acceleration, as an example. And notice as well that acceleration must affect the functional work of the atomic clock because the internal mechanism of these clock is by signals perceived by an internal device counting the vibration frequency of the atom of Cesium. When the atomic clock is exposed to lower gravity (notice that pressure and gravity are two separate issues in this case) it is a fact that the behavior of the atom of Casium changes.

The experiments made in the Space Station have proven already without doubt that the behavior of atoms and molecules brought from ground Zero change when taken to outer space, to the point that you can mix liquid metals in outer space, something that you can't do by any means here on ground Zero.

As you can see, you owe me ten million dollars.

You can see as well, that no one in this world will be ever capable to collect the ten million dollars prize by proving that time exists physically.

The entire idea of dilatation of time is a child's fantasy, and the term "space time" is absurd and a mere joke.

Cheers.

You should try some searches about time corrections on GPS satelites. The flow of time is affected both, by velocity as gravitacional potential. And the relativistic corrections actually work the same way it had been predict by Einstein theory. Without such corrections the GPS would not have any use.

It's difficult to imagine that no matter the kind of the clock, hourglass, mechanicals or atomic, they are all affected in the same way and amount.

The change in time is for several reasons.
1. You bought cheap watches. (An atomic clock is quite different from a cheap watch.)
2. Cold affects metal clock parts which is commonly known. Your cheap watch uses metal components that will contract and act differently.
3. Cold affects batteries on a cheap watch.


Actually, they have been tested against acceleration. It causes them to slow down which is exactly what time dilation is. You are simply claiming that the observed dilation is a malfunction. You aren't proving anything. You are just relabeling an observation to suit your veiwpoint.