Time is a measurement of spin.
Debate Rounds (5)
The burden of proof exists on both sides
We should first take a look at my opponent's arguments so that we can establish a fact.
"Without spin, time would not exist. Note - The spin of the Earth is the main reference frame for time. The seconds, minutes, hours, days and years - all relate to the rotation of the Earth."
My opponent accidentally commits the fallacy of hasty generalization. He is right that a one point in the 4th dimension, a year was equal to the time that the Earth takes to travel around the Sun, and that a day was at one point the time it takes for the Earth to rotate itself. However, my opponent accidentally includes seconds, minutes and hours in his analysis. These are not based in the Earth's movement. Finally, we need to understand that currently, a year is an accumulation of days, and that it is a dependent variable of days.
I will explain this concept in my first argument.
Argument (or Contention) 1:
Time exists as a mental construct in order for us to understand the world better. Humans naturally need some specific way in which to arrange their lives; we need time in order to to schedule events and complete tasks with a universally understood measurement, however the Ira that the earth regulates such a measurement is only based in a little bit of fact. Rather, we could say that seconds are equal to the time it takes for a whale to complete digesting a meal, or the time a piece of matter (factoring out air resistance) takes to fall 20 meters or yards. We even can say how long a second is based on long light takes to travel a distance. See, seconds are very flexible, simply because they are not based on the Earth's spin. Same with minutes and hours.
When I was analyzing my opponent's argument, I mentioned that at one point in time, a day or year was equal to a certain measurement.
Argument (or Contention) 2:
The length of a day is changing. The Earth's rotation is slowing because of tidal effects caused by the moon. "Atomic clocks show that a modern day is longer by about 1.7 milliseconds than a century ago" (Wikipedia, unknown author). This means that the measurements are slightly off, and that time for days and years is no longer based on the Earth's rotation.
Time is not or no longer based on the Earth's rotation. Seconds, minutes, and hours are mental, imaginary constructs, and days and years have not remained the same throughout the 4th dimension. This shows that that humans do not use the Earth's rotation for time, and the Con is clearly the correct side.
My opponent also doesn't understand that hours, minutes and seconds are just sub-divisions of the 24 hour rotation of the Earth. Seconds, minutes and hours are not just arbitrary measurements. They are accurate divisions of time which are based on the Earth's rotation.
Reference - The second was thus defined as:
the fraction 1R60;31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time
To win this debate, my opponent must prove that time would still exist if there was no spinning reference frame. Good luck!
My opponent challenges me to produce a deletion for a second that does not use the earth's rotation, and I looked at his own link to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org...). There, I acquired the definition of a second as:
"It is quantitatively defined in terms of a certain number of periods " about 9 billion " of a certain frequency of radiation from the caesium atom"
As we can see, it is rather easy to define the length of a second without using the spin of the Earth. I could even define it as the time an object takes to fall 9.8 meters at sea level with no air resistance. I could even define it by using the time it takes to travel a certain distance.
The whole point of my first contention is that seconds, minutes, and hours are arbitrary measurements. We simply invented them. There is no scientific basis for why a second, minute, or hour is the length it is. I agree that seconds, minutes, and hours are sub-divisions of a day, but that means nothing to either side, and thus has no impact. Finally, time would still exist, even without the Earth's rotation. As I have mentioned, time is a mental construct.
My opponent completely ignored my second contention, and in debate that means that you agree with it, however for the purpose of creating a better debate, he may refute in the next round as if not rounds had passed.
Now, to recap for my opponent, he must refute:
My continued refutations of my first contention
My second contention
And continue his first contention
2. My opponent has assumed that time division is arbitrary. Yet, I have clearly demonstrated that seconds are fractions of the spin of the Earth's rotation. My opponent has used the frequency of radiation from the caesium atom as a measurement of the second. He has failed to understand that the number of oscillations is calibrated in relation to the existing second and is not an independent observation.
3. The fact remains that the second is definitely a specific fraction of the Earth's rotation and that it can't be said that this is in any way "arbitrary".
4. My opponent has failed to logically explain how time can exist without spin or rotation. Note - Without spin, life and the universe wouldn't exist. Thus, without a universe, there can be no time, matter or any thing else for that matter.
To continue on to my opponent's claim that time division is not arbitrary, my opponent mentioned that the cesium atom was calibrated to be the same as the time segment, however I can make the opposite claim that time is calibrated to the radiation of a cesium atom. My opponent, in his attempt to prove me wrong, actually agreed with me. In fact, I could say that any one source of measuring time was the measurement all measurements were based off of. Time division is completely arbitrary, and thus my opponent's 2 and 3 arguments fall.
Let's go to point 4. My opponent stated that without spin, the universe would not exist. This seems like a inverse of this debate. We are attempting to prove whether or not time is a measurement of spin, not whether or not time would exist without spin.
I would like to continue my second contention, that the length of a day is changing. My opponent must agree with me, because he has yet to refute this argument. He has dropped my second contention, and he cannot make any further arguments against it. Why? Because doing so would have prevented me from arguing his point for two whole rounds, and thus is not allowed in debate.
Now, I will analyze my contention to show it's impacts. I quoted Wikipedia, showing how the rotation of the Earth is slightly off due to the moon and tidal effects. This shows that the original length of time form a day and a year are different then when the were created. Note that I admit days and years are created off of spin, but prove that since the current days and years are not the same length as they were when they were created, they are not the measuring spin anymore.
The world keeps adjusting the the standard time. This is done because the spin of the Earth is slowing down. Every 18 months on the average, with variation, a leap second is added to planetary time keeping to keep the day consistent with atomic clocks and astronomical observations.
Although the caesium atom radiation may be used to measure a second, the overall time is still a record of the Earth's rotation. Reference - https://en.wikipedia.org...
To win this debate, my opponent must prove that the spin of the Earth has nothing to do with time and that clocks that record time have no spinning or rotating mechanisms within them.
My opponent mentions leap seconds, however he mentions them far too late. He had adequate time (2 rounds) to accurately refute my second contention. As I mentioned last round, by not doing so, he has shown that he agrees with it. Thus, his current false refutation is not able to actually refute my second contention. But I am still allowed to use his own words in order to better prove my side. For instance, my opponent mentions that we must keep adding a leap second to have time remain relative to the Earth's rotation. Also, my opponent agreed that a cesium atom can be used to measure a second. Let's combine the two fact's and we can see that we are forced to update the Earth's rotation to time based off of the radiation of a cesium atom. This clearly shows that the cesium atom, not the Earth's rotation, is actually the measure of a second, and thus a day.
My opponent challenges me to "prove that the spin of the Earth has nothing to do with time and that clocks that record time have no spinning or rotating mechanisms within them." This a false challenge, as it does not target the main idea of this debate. Firstly, I have already shown in that the Earth's rotation is not the basis for measuring time. I do not need to prove that it has nothing to do with time, because I have already completed this debate by showing that time is not a measurement of spin. Secondly, clocks do contain rotating mechanisms, however this is simply a common, inexpensive way to show the length of a second. Note that the rotating mechanism is not the basis or the measurement for time, but simply an interface. Finally, my opponent bringing up clocks is very much a stretch, as he hasn't ever said anything about a rotating mechanism being related to spin.
I will being showing the impacts of my arguments, however first I would like to point out that my opponent completely dropped my repeated argument about time being arbitrary and his own contentions. Also, as I mentioned previously, he dropped my second contention. Basically, this late into the debate, he has shown that he is unable to refute either of my two contentions or refute my refutations. He has completely agreed to everything in this debate. Now, I will show what it is important. The importance of my first contention is to show how seconds, hours, and minutes are the result of a rather random division of the larger chunks of time into smaller bits of time. They were created without measuring the spin of the Earth and thus have no basis in spin. Next, I would hope that this debate's voters will stand me copying an earlier edition of how my second contention has impact in order to save time and prevent me from accidentally contradicting myself. "I quoted Wikipedia, showing how the rotation of the Earth is slightly off due to the moon and tidal effects. This shows that the original length of time form a day and a year are different then when the were created. Note that I admit days and years are created off of spin, but prove that since the current days and years are not the same length as they were when they were created, they are not the measuring spin anymore." Finally, since my opponent did not continue to refute my refutations to his contentions, this has shown that he is unable to come up with an argument for why his contentions are good. My opponent has already lost this debate due to the fact that he has no contentions, were as I have two contentions that he has agreed with and cannot refute. Thank you.
Akhenaten forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate