Very interesting articles,
I have thought a great deal about this subject, and it seems to me that rather than ask 'does time exist' or 'what is time' (which are loaded questions) - we should perhaps first ask ...
'what do we basically observe?' - and then see if the need or existence of an extra, and apparently mysterious thing e.g. time arises.
in my experience we basically observe matter and motion - and if wee look at this in great detail we can see that just matter existing moving changing and interacting 'now' so to speak can account for all that we observe and attribute to 'time'.
if you look at Einstein's 'relativity' you can see that he 'assumes' that (extra to matter and motion) time exists in at least some way, but without proving this. He then goes on to word his revelations in terms of 'time' ( time being dilated etc).
whereas i think it can be shown that everything he says can be seen as correct, but also just happening 'now' (with no existence of 'time' suggested or implied). -
Anyone can just casually say something like this, and such comments are ten a penny unless carefully backed up, so I wrote a book draft, set up a page, and made a few videos about it.
see 'A Brief History of Timelessness'
(one of the videos - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpT9l7ZPmtw)
Matt Welcome, London
More information about formatting options