Time exists.

Premise 1 is self evident. Premise 2: The concept of "change" makes no sense without Time Premise 2 rebuttals I age as a natural process therefore the fact that I change would occur even if time didn't exist. It's a biological aspect of reality. Therefore change doesn't need to be conceptualized using time. It can actually be applied to observing something. Time is in no way needed to see me aging. The Earth rotates and therefore we have night and day. Time doesn't need to exist for the Earth to rotate and change from day to night. We can observe the change from day to night because time doesn't define day or night, light and darkness do. Day and night are not dependent on time existing, only light and darkness. I could go on with thousands of examples of things changing that can be observed even if the word or concept of time were never injected into humanity. But the fact is clear that Premise 2 is a non sequitur. I have just made sense of change without time. Therefore, We do not make sense of change because of time, we make sense of it by actually seeing things change. Premise 3: When testing Relativity, we observe that the tested clocks differ according to Relativity's predictions regarding Time, and that the clocks are not faulty. Premise 3....rebuttals "clocks are not faulty" implies humans can make perfect clocks, they cannot. Relativity was in regards to time, not clocks, please provide scientific proof that a mechanical device made by humans, clocks, are directly affected by time and vice versa. Name one clock whose movement is caused by time. My clocks move because of electric current and springs that are wound up. There are also clocks whose movements are caused by counter weights, as in a grandfather clock. Until you show me physical evidence that time is connected to clocks directly and are dependent upon each other, saying that clocks were affected therefore time was is a non sequitur.. Clocks were affected, not time....jumping to time is a leap of faith at best and completely illogical at worst. You have no concrete evidence that proves time can be observed, has an affect on anything, can be grasped, or even testable. Words such as year (one revolution of the Earth around the sun), day (1 revolution of the Earth on its axis) are ways we define events. Events are measured in regards to the movement of the Earth, not the movement of time. Seconds, minutes, hours are all determined by agreed upon increments that are represented mechanically in the design of clocks. One hour is a way of defining that mechanically designed movement, not time. I also make the assertion that, in accordance with General Relativity, Time is a 4th dimension, and is no different than Height, Width, or Length. "IS NO DIFFERENT"... Width, height, and length are all observable and can be seen by merely pointing them out to other people. "See the HEIGHT of that building?"..... of course you do if you're not blind. "See the WIDTH of the street" ....of course you do if you aren't blind. "See the TIME that the building exists in?", no, but I can look at a clock if you want. I cannot point out to you the time that the building exists in because it would be 24 different "time" answers depending on what time zone the person you are talking to is currently in. I'm in Texas, I'm talking to a friend in the Philippines, the time that we are both talking about the building is different to both of us. However, the height of the building is the same to my friend in the Philippines as it is to me. I would have to send them a picture to see the building of course , but I could at least take a picture of its height and the answer would only be 1 value not numerous values or even close to 24 different values as it would be if answering what time. Can you take a picture of time?. Calling time a dimension and saying it's no different than height, width, and length isn't even close to being accurate. My premise...you haven't defined anything remotely accurate to the claim. Premise 2 and 3 are nonsensical, inaccurate, and ambiguous. I will not engage in any more rebuttals. You haven't even represented an argument, you've merely set up a train of thoughts and definitions that are demonstrably false.