Time is a measure of related rates of change. Change is the difference in motion of one event to the motion of another event. Motion is displacement of matter in space. The smallest matter that exists is observed to be interaction between the particles as a direct result of particle decay. Particle Decay is an event that is impossible to stop. It is also impossible to predict which way the decay occurs making it purely random. This random occurrence is in constant continuous motion. It is the why atoms or constantly jiggling as mentioned by Feynman (my husband) himself.
It is this motion that we depend on when it comes to atomic clocks and why atomic clocks work the way they do. Clocks measure the motion of particle interaction. If this is wrong and time does not require motion or change to be measured then I submit to you to give me a measurement of time where nothing changes and nothing moves I want to know what that looks like. Basically you're asking to measure time on times clock what does that look like if we have nothing to compare it to.
Your thought experiment is actually proof of the absurdity of what life looks like an absolute time in the sense that if time is in fact absolute everything happens at the same time and you would be able to read tomorrow's newspaper today you wouldn't in fact be able to read all newspapers at the same time and all events would occur at the same time.
The thought experiment is a very good example of why time isn't absolute.
Well, once again, I have to start a post with...
Saying it doesn't make it so!
Bob's argument never suggests anything similar to "time does not require motion or change to be measured", in fact, I know for certain that Bob would have absolutely agreed that time requires change and so the closest you've come to an argument here doesn't address anything related to Bob's (and my) position.
Further, while the concept of time can be used as a measure of change, that is not what time is, at bottom. Time is a concept. It is, in fact, a convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. If you are talking about time in relation to an intentional measurement then all you need is a regularly occurring event by which to make a comparison. It makes no difference, conceptually, whether its nuclear decay, the rotation of the Earth, the dripping of water, the swinging of a pendulum, the vibrations of electrically stimulated quarts, the tapping of your foot or the crowning of a new king. One may be more precise than another but the concept is exactly the same. All you're doing is creating a clock that compares the occurrance of one event (or set of events) to another.
Lastly, simply claiming that, "Your thought experiment is actually proof of the absurdity of what life looks like an absolute time in the sense that if time is in fact absolute everything happens at the same time and you would be able to read tomorrow's newspaper today you wouldn't in fact be able to read all newspapers at the same time and all events would occur at the same time.[sic]" doesn't make it so, jp! If you want to make an actual argument then you'll need to explain in what way the thought experiment suggests that all events happen at the same time. It flatly does not do so. In fact, such an accusation doesn't even make any sense!
You've done a decent job here of stating what you believe concerning the thought experiment, what you've failed to do is explain WHY you believe it. The result is just a collection of bald claims that do nothing to refute the argument Bob makes in the OP. What is needed is for you to actually make the argument where you show the line of reasoning that leads logically from Bob's claims to the rational consequence you're claiming exists.