Time is but a measurement

I am no physicist either, so I believe we approach this from different angles, but with comparable degrees of a layman's understanding. Indeed, I would not be surprised is there were someone in the audience bemused by both of our attempts to make since of this matter. Con:: ‘you can measure time. You can't measure a measurement.' Is a minute a measurement of time or a description of time? A second is equal to a given number of radioactive cycles of cesium-133. When we look at it this way, we see that a second (and all other ‘measurements' of time we are familiar with) really are equal to a given amount of change in the system. To say something occurred in a given amount of time is, in this regard, to say that it occurred along with a standard amount of predictable change in the system. When viewed in this way, time ceases to be seen as a dimension- we have not ‘measured time', we have merely described a given amount of change in the observable universe. While the common understanding of time remains useful, it cannot be shown to be more valid than the concept of time as a measurement of change. I strongly suspect this would become even more apparent when dealing w/ particle physics, where the concept of causation and temporal relation breaks down Con:: "Now, if time is a true dimension, then something can only move through it at a single rate at a time- we should have the same measurements." Please explain. I'm not much of a physics guy. I prefer Chem. Think about it this way. Take the three familiar dimensions. Let us say that there exists a cabinet or any other mass within these dimensions. The extent to which this mass extends into each dimension of height, width, and depth is finite and constant- even if we view it form different angles, the dimensions themselves are the same. Now, let us each measure the cabinet. Even if we use different units of measure, our measurements would be equivalent. However, taking the classic example from Einstein: -You remain stationary -I travel towards you at the speed of light -I shine a light towards you as I do so Relativity predicts and tests confirm that while I see the second light travel away from me at the speed of light and reach you before I do, you see me and the light I shine towards you approach at the same speed and arrive at the same time. Now, if we measure the distances traveled, we will arrive at the same number. However, different amounts of ‘time' (no matter how measured) must pass for me, you, and the beam of light in order to explain the results. I ask you this, then: if time as we know and experience it is a distinct dimension and not merely a subjective measurement of perceived change in the physical state of the universe, how can we possibly measure it differently in this example? It defies the qualities of the known dimensions and the relationship of matter (and energy) to those dimensions- that is, how matter may travel through those dimensions. It simply fails to meet the definition of a true and definite dimension. (You img link is broken, btw) Con quoted my earlier comment that : 'Feet' did not exist before we made it up, but physical size and dimensions certainly did. Changes in the physical state of the universe occurred 'before' we began to measure them. My point here was that matter extended into the three physical dimensions before we began to define or describe them. Similarly, changes in matter took place ‘before' we began to seek to explain and understand it. This has no bearing on the nature of time or the physical dimensions- your earlier reasoning was flawed in this regard, for you seem to assume that man's understanding or experience has the slightest bearing on truth. Con:: So, if you could go back in time there, you couldn't say one-mississippi, 2-mississippi... And then come back and say you were there for about 15 minutes. If you were to return to a state devoid of matter, then you could not even count- for you could not be. You presence would mean that matter and space existed and changes would be taking place. That change could then be defined and measured as a concept of ‘time.' The test you propose would be impossible by definition