Existence

Without time how can there be change?Or are you suggesting that the universe is unchanging?

Can you explain how change can occur without time? Do you agree that change would occur in the universe regardless of man's existence? Man certainly measures time by observing change. But that is not the same thing as you seem to be suggesting.Are you familiar with the idea of an atomic clock? An atomic clock on a satellite orbiting Earth will show time passing at a different rate (faster) than an equally accurate clock on the Earth's surface.How do you explain this?

Something has to exist in order to change. OK. Existence without time would be static and unchanging existence wouldn't it? Can you explain how this is not the case? And why do you think gravity affects the rate at which two identical atomic clocks measure time if time is nothing more than man observing the rotation of the Earth?

Time is a property of the universe. Throwing in the term "duration" doesn't change this fact. Why does gravity affect the "duration" measured by the different clocks if time is not a property of the universe?If you are getting a sense of deja vu here have a look at Message 314. In that thread you ended up demonstrating your absolute ignorance by insisting that something moving in a circle wasn't accelerating unless it was getting faster.

What are you measuring "duration" in ICANT? Did they? What were they measuring "duration" in? ICANT do you really think the predictions General Relativity makes about gravitational time dilation are remotely comparable to your dodgy ticker that is incapable of accurately measuring time?Buy a new clock!! Equivalence is one of the key principles that General relativity is founded upon. Gravity as Acceleration For Dummies

ICANT how are you determining that the two clocks measured the same duration? What are you measuring "duration" in? If you built two perfectly identical exceptionally accurate clocks in Greenwich UK, started them both ticking at exactly the same point and then transported one of them to Bolder US they would indeed show very small differing times as having elapsed since starting due to relatavistic effects.Do you dispute this?

ICANT how are you determining that the two clocks measured the same duration? What are you measuring "duration" in? If you built two perfectly identical exceptionally accurate clocks in Greenwich UK, started them both ticking at exactly the same point and then transported one of them to Bolder US they would indeed show very small differing times as having elapsed since starting due to relatavistic effects.Do you dispute this?

So your argument is based on clocks that are accurate to within one second every 3,700,000,000 years measuring the time wrongly? Well General Relativity, based on time being an intrinsic property of the universe, can predict the effects of space-time curvature (i.e. gravity) on time to a degree of startling experimentally verified accuracy.You on the other hand have invented this term "duration" which apparently is a measure of existence, isn't the same as time but is measured in seconds and then constructed an argument which depends on the most accurate clocks being unable to keep time remotely accurately. Only if you want simplicity at the expense of accuracy.

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly - How can we convince ICANT of this without sending real twins off at near light speeds and then comparing their wrinkles?

You may be overestimating ICANT here!!!ICANT thinks that the accuracy of an atomic clock is being adversely affected (in a way that exactly matches space-time curvature predictions) by the pull of gravity on the particles involved in the time keeping process.

No ICANT. It means they measure time to that accuracy regardless of where they are. So if we build one clock at the top of a mountain and one at the bottom do you think they will stay in synch? Is "duration" a property of the universe? How do you meaure this "duration"...? Faster relative to what? A clock in a stronger gravitational field? Yes. But which clock measures "duration".........?

ICANT do you think that if we construct a clock in Greenwich and we construct an identical clock in Bolder that the two will stay in synch?

So we have two clocks. One constructed in, and residing in, Bolder. One constructed in, and residing in, Greenwich. Both of them are constructed identically to be accurate to within one second every 3.7 billion years. But the two clocks "tick" at different rates. Why adjust Bolder to agree with Greenwich rather than vice versa? Indeed. But if I want to measure this "duration" quantity of yours which is distinct from time which of the two clocks should I use?How do I measure this quantity "duration" you keep referring to? (which effectively amounts to an absolute time - whether you realise this or not)

OK. So lets say that I have the readout from each of these clocks side by side on the computer screen in front of me.If I want to very very precisely measure how long something takes which clock should I use and why?

Oh ICANT you are so close and yet I fear so so far...... Yes ICANT they both tick at 9,192,631,770 ticks per second.Yet the two clocks in question show very accurate but slightly different durations for the same event.So if I, sitting at my desk, want to very very precisely measure how long something takes which clock should I use and why?