The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DemosthenesWiggin
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

math has no certain measure

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 288 times Debate No: 94075
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

my senses are not the certainty of the speedometer in my car

if you drive a mile, how do you know that there is truly a mile back?

machines cant tell me what is real, only what to believe..
DemosthenesWiggin

Con

I accept your challenge.

Math does have certain measure. A unit of distance never changes its length; a meter is always a set unit of length. In your example of driving a mile, the reflexive property of geometry says that any line segment is equal to itself, so the mile that you drove one way must be equal to the distance back to your starting point.

The only reason a mile might not seem like a mile back is due to the lack of absolute time. Due to the lack of absolute time, faster objects travel through time slower, so multiplying the speed given by your speedometer times a measure of time might not give the distance of a mile, depending on where the measure of time was taken.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

a thumb is always a certain length

time is absolute.. you dont travel anywhere without time

so, a speedometer is a certain measuring tool? no doubt involved there
DemosthenesWiggin

Con

A thumb is not always a certain length, different people have different thumb lengths, and some people have two thumbs of different lengths. Using body parts to measure causes consistency problems, as shown by the ancient cubit, usually the length of the elbow to fingertip. Since different people have different arm lengths, using a cubit for measurement causes problems and arguments. Even when using a royal cubit, which is the cubit of the king, consistency problems still arise during multi-nation trade, as different nations would have different royal cubits. In conclusion, using body parts to measure, such as a thumb, suffer large consistency problems, so a thumb is not always a certain length.

Time is not absolute (1). Since Newton's laws imply that there is no absolute rest, everything is moving relative to something else. Therefore, different observers will not agree on the distance that light has traveled. If time was absolute, the observers would then disagree on it's speed, since speed equals distance (which they do not agree on) divided by time (which they would agree on). However, light travels at a fixed speed (186000 mi/s), so time cannot be absolute.

The fact that time is not absolute was proven in theory by Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and has been proven in practice many times, including in 1962 when scientists placed an atomic clock at the bottom of a water tower and one at the top (2). They found that the clock at the bottom was running slower, just as the Theory of Relativity predicted.

(1)- http://www.science20.com...
(2)- http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

if it isnt a certain length it isnt a thumb.. how long is an unknown thumb? you know

existence is absolute, know is true, is absolute..
motion equals unequal to.. for impact to accur

there is no pattern i see, that is to fast for my mind to comprehend.

an object is still or moving.. not neither or both.. and mass claims space.. a heavy object has no "choice" but to fall in gravity, or is the earth moving towards it?

light is unlimited beyond the limit i put on the light by seeking it.. light has no speed, its on or off

i want to add that, the only certain measure is physical experience

i agree about something, getting out of water on the beach time speeds up as i move faster
DemosthenesWiggin

Con

In the fourth paragraph of your round three argument you claim that "an object is still or moving... not neither or both". However, this is incorrect, since an object's movement can only be measured relative to other objects. If I am running past my friend, who is standing in place, I am moving forward relative to my friend, and he is moving backwards relative to me. This lack of absolute rest was established in Newton's three laws (1).

Additionally, you say "light has no speed". This is completely untrue. The fact that light travels at a finite, though very fast speed, was established hundreds of years ago (2). Furthermore, your other claim about light, namely that "its on or off", contains a large inaccuracy. Light is both a particle and a wave, therefore it can behave as either (3). Since light can exist as a particle, saying that light is "on or off" is like saying that a bit of matter is either on or off; it makes no sense at all!

In your sixth paragraph, you say that "the only certain measure is physical experience". However, people tend to have an inaccurate perception of time. This is demonstrated in Vierordt's law, which says that longer time lengths are typically underestimated, while shorter time lengths are typically overestimated (4). Actual tools, on the other hand, are much better at measuring time, such as an optical frequency comb (5). Healthy humans, when asked to measure ninety seconds, tend to say that ninety seconds have passed when really a few more than ninety seconds have passed (6).

In your last round three paragraph, you say that "getting out of the water on the beach time speed up as i move faster". Here, although you do move faster, due to the fact that the air offers less resistance than the water, the difference that this makes in your personal time is immeasurably tiny.

(1)- http://www.science20.com...
(2)- http://www.speed-light.info...
(3)- https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu...
(4)- https://en.wikipedia.org...
(5)- http://www.scientificamerican.com...
(6)- http://www.theatlantic.com...
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

so if its not still or moving what is it.. your friend is standing still, not moving, you are moving forward which is away from where he is standing still..

particles and atoms are stories.. not real

experience is time..
every time i say the word now, i am sure i am experiencing 1 true second, now..... now...... now......

now=reality loop 1 second or less

no, i move more slowly in water this is very measurably
matter=space+time
DemosthenesWiggin

Con

You say that my "friend is standing still, not moving", however Newton's three laws of motion declare that there is no absolute state of rest, everything is in motion relative to something else (1). In the example, my friend is in motion, since the earth is rotating around its axis and revolving around the sun. Even excluding that, my friend is in motion relative to me, since there is no central point of the universe to measure rest relative to (2).

You say that "particles and atoms are stories.. [they are] not real". This claim is unwarranted, meaning that there is no evidence to back it up, only an assertion that it is true. Regardless, this claim can be proven false by examining the experiments that proved the existence of subatomic particles, such as JJ Thomson's cathode ray experiment, which proved the existence of electrons (3). This experiment demonstrated the existence of a subatomic particle one thousand time lighter than the hydrogen atom, the electron. Furthermore, the experiment proved that electrons have the same mass no matter what atom they come from, meaning that they are a fundamental building block of atoms.

(1)- http://www.topperlearning.com...
(2)- http://math.ucr.edu...
(3)-https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

which isnt true, if i stand on the ground i am not in motion.. you can say the earth is in motion orbiting the sun..

your friend is standing still or moving

i have never seen atoms or particles

so now you have told a story of electrons to demonstrate that electrons are not stories
DemosthenesWiggin

Con

You say that if you "stand on the ground, [you are] not in motion", however you are still in motion relative to the center of the earth, the sun, the center of the galaxy, and other galaxies (1). Even ignoring that, Newton's laws abolish an absolute state of rest, since there is no point in the universe which rest may be measured relative to. If a person is standing still relative to the ground beneath their feet, they are still going up to 1004 miles per hour due to the earths rotation.

You say that "i have never seen atoms or particles", implying that this is supposed to be support for you round 4 argument of "particles and atoms are stories... [they are] not real". However, only believing in what can be seen would cause science to be very archaic. Experiments such as JJ Thomson's cathode ray experiment, which proved the existence of electrons (2), and James Chadwick's discovery of the neutron, the neutrally charged subatomic particle (3), prove the existence of these particles, which are too small to be seen. Establishing visual contact of these subatomic structures is unnecessary, as their existence can be proven without being seen.

Additionally, you say that in round four, I "told a story of electrons to demonstrate that electrons are not stories". First, I did not tell a story about atoms, I instead explained how JJ Thomson's discovery of electrons proves the existence of these subatomic building blocks. In your round four and five arguments, you use the negative connotation of stories, that if something is a story, it is not real. However, subatomic particles are not make-believe, as several experiments have proven. Additionally, a story can be real; one definition of story is "a narrative, either true or fictitious" (4). Although electrons can be made into stories, they are definitely real, just as some stories are.

In conclusion, I believe that math does have certain measure, due to the unalienable distinctive units. Units never change in their measurement, a meter, liter, gram, etc is always the same. Additionally, almost of Pro's claims were unwarranted, meaning that they have no evidence backing them up. Almost all of them can be proven wrong, as I have done with several from various rounds.

(1)- http://www.physicstutorials.org...
(2)- https://en.wikipedia.org...
(3)- https://www.nobelprize.org...
(4)- http://www.dictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
that theory just collapses... this was easy
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
nice debate! :)
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
on the beach, until i move faster time is slowed by water
No votes have been placed for this debate.