The Instigator
prodigyinmathandscience
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Iredia
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Is time fundamentally physical?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Iredia
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 667 times Debate No: 45475
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

prodigyinmathandscience

Con

Rules

If either Pro or I fail to comply with the following rules, 7 points will automatically be deducted from that person.

1. No plagiarism; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.

2. No semantics.

3. You may only troll when things get completely out of hand.

Presentation

Special Relavity

According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, time dilates, depending on something's/one's speed.



So, the Sun radiates light. Let's just assume that lights are waves. Because matter occupies space (Let's also assume that), the light has a medium (Any matter) to travel through. So, it can travel a mile, yet the very least second hasn't even past.
Iredia

Pro

I am so sorry. I made a mistake. I came here to argue that time is fundamentally mental. I thought the instigator was in support of the topic not against. However, I will still go on with the debate.

First, a definition of time:

"Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future" [1]

From the definition, we see that time is contingent on events and all events are physical. Even the description of time as a dimension also suggests time is physical; this should be more apparent given the fact that dimensions are properties of physical objects. Another thing we should note is the fact that time is defined as a sequence of events, hence a perception of change in physical events is a common way of telling the time (eg sunrise and sunset). The success of Einstein's theory of relativity comes from how it formally resolves time and space into into spacetime (ie Minkowski space).

Finally, time is acknowledged as a physical quantity

"Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in the International System of Units." [1]

[1] http://www.en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
prodigyinmathandscience

Con

Rebuttals

No. Time is physical. However: The fundamental physicality of time implies that ALL MOVEMENT requires time, which is false. How so? I will present my argument again.

Special Relativity

According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, time dilates, relative to others', depending on something's/one's speed.



So, the Sun radiates light. Let's just assume that lights are waves. Because matter occupies space (Let's also assume that), the light has a medium (Any matter) to travel through. So, it can travel a mile, yet the very least second hasn't even past.

"The success of Einstein's theory of relativity comes from how it formally resolves time and space into into spacetime (ie Minkowski space)."

Yes. It shows relation between space and time. However, according to the theory, the faster something moves, its time, relative to others', dilate. Please read contention above (Special Relativity, as labeled).

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Iredia

Pro

First up, I thought I was the one arguing that time is physical. Next up, I think a movement not requiring time is disingenious. The reason is clear from the commonly experienced fact of motion whuch requires time. If a thing doesn't time to move, how then can it move without time ? To demonstrate otherwise is simple: start a stopwatch and draw a line on a metre rule, that will take some time.

"So, the Sun radiates light. Let's just assume that lights are waves . . . So, it can travel a mile, yet the very least second hasn't even past."

But that's because light travels very fast. In fact, its speed is the limit a thing can travel; maybe because light has the least possible mass.
I have linked a TED talk where high-tech slow motion capture has made it possible to photograph A TRILLION frames a second; with these one can easily watch light travel in slow motion, literally.[1]

More importantly, I don't see how the points you made actually refute mine, moreso given my arguments here showing you are mistaken.

References

[1] new.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second
Debate Round No. 2
prodigyinmathandscience

Con

prodigyinmathandscience forfeited this round.
Iredia

Pro

I will stay my arguments in this round since my opponent forfieted this round.
Debate Round No. 3
prodigyinmathandscience

Con

prodigyinmathandscience forfeited this round.
Iredia

Pro

I will have to stay my arguments again.

But again, recall how Con uses the argument from the facts of time dilation, and the inference that time slows down from the perspective of a photon, to argue that time isn't physical. This is false because the very fact of time dilation is (and is based on) a physical event.
Debate Round No. 4
prodigyinmathandscience

Con

prodigyinmathandscience forfeited this round.
Iredia

Pro

Iredia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by prodigyinmathandscience 3 years ago
prodigyinmathandscience
Time dilates (For that thing/person), relative to other's time*
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
prodigyinmathandscienceIrediaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F/F