The Instigator
Akhenaten
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Adam_Godzilla
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Time never changes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Adam_Godzilla
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 852 times Debate No: 118935
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (3)

 

Akhenaten

Pro

I state that time can never change regardless of speed and acceleration. Time is a merely a measurement of spin and rotation and is not a linear vector or an extra dimension.
Adam_Godzilla

Con

I think your argument has already fallen apart. By your logic, Time certainly can change, Depending on changes in spin and rotation. Of an electron yes?

Whether or not time is a dimension of its own is a topic that is beyond the both of us. But by your logic, And the confines of this debate, I believe your argument is flawed. If time is a measurement of spin and rotation which are merely other words for speed and acceleration, Then of course time can change.

Anyways, Space is a dimension. It has been proven that as space curves more and more, Time changes along with it. It's debatable, But recently scientists don't consider time to be a dimension of its own but that space time is one dimension. https://phys. Org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension. Html


Debate Round No. 1
Akhenaten

Pro

What I mean by time not changing is that time can't speed up or slow down. Time is just an abstract concept which is not a thing or an object in itself. Physicists have tried to turn time into an object by creating space / time. This is an illogical concept. Physicists are not good at commonsense or grammar and make basic mistakes like this all the time. Time is merely a concept and every kindergarten child knows that you can't turn a concept into an object. That is of course, Unless you are Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein, Then, You can do as you please.

Quote: "Whether or not time is a dimension of its own is a topic that is beyond the both of us"
You have fallen into the science world's trap of thinking that time concepts are beyond the understanding of the common man. The science world is full of over complication. This is done to confuse people into thinking that science and physics are beyond their understanding. This is just a con trick to create the illusion of superior knowledge, Which leads to more prestige, Income and status. A lot of scientists are just plain dumb arses and should be employed as street cleaners.

Quote : "space curves"
The universe is made primarily of aether which flows and moves. This is what creates the illusion of curved space.
Experiments have been conducted to prove that time changes with acceleration. Unfortunately, They have not included the existence of an aether which explains why the clocks would slow down with acceleration. The aether pushes on the clock mechanism which causes a physical hindrance to the clocks movement. Thus, We have a logical physical reason as to why the clock slows down and we don't have to rely on illogical theories about time changing and space curving.
Adam_Godzilla

Con

"What I mean by time not changing is that time can't speed up or slow down. Time is just an abstract concept which is not a thing or an object in itself. Physicists have tried to turn time into an object by creating space / time. This is an illogical concept. "

Time is not an object. Space is not an object. An object is anything that has an identifiable collection of matter. Matter exists within space. Space and time are even beginning to be thought of as the same thing. What is space though? The correct answer is noone knows.

Pro fails to understand that it doesn't matter what he is defining time as, he is still not arguing against the resolution. Can time change? Yes. Does it matter if it's a concept or an object? Not really. This is what pro is debating. Otherwise he should've changed the resolution to: "Time is not tangible" or something like that.

This is why pro has already lost this debate.

Anyways, I'll argue his other resolutions.

"You have fallen into the science world's trap. . . . "

Pro here says he thinks he understands time better than the hundreds of physicists in known history. I doubt this.

"The universe is made primarily of aether which flows and moves. "

Pro goes on about aether, Providing no sources. This is a controversial claim. Even if pro gives sources in the next round, I believe voters should deduct source points. Thank you.

Einstein rejects the notion of an aether. It's a good logical theory. But it ultimately failed. Einstain says: "According to this theory there is no such thing as a "specially favoured" (unique) co-ordinate system to occasion the introduction of the æther-idea, And hence there can be no æther-drift, Nor any experiment with which to demonstrate it. . . . Thus for a co-ordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and Morley is not shortened, But it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively to the sun" - https://resonance. Is/the-end-of-the-aether

However, This is only an alternate explanation. But truly, Einstein conceded that the
aehter does exist. Exist, It's not "ether", It's space-time itself! Space-time is a physical product, So of course there has to be some truths to the aether argument.

So the aether, Which is actually space time as physicisists agree, Is the thing that changes time. You say time never changes. You introduce the idea of the Aether. But your argument SUPPORTS the my stance. Space and time are one of the same thing. And space-time is the aether itself.

I look forward to the next round, This debate is much more interesting than I thought :).
Debate Round No. 2
Akhenaten

Pro

My opponent says " That time is not an object and that space is not an object" But then goes on to imply that space / time is an object. Wow! Now, How confused can a person get!
Of course Con, 1+1 =3! Everybody knows that!

Quote - "What is space though? The correct answer is no-one knows"
But then my opponent implies that space is really space/ time (which is just another name for the aether as quoted by Einstein himself).
Yes folks, The science world must like the concept of an aether because they have several alternative names for it so that they don't have to mention that science world taboo word the 'aether'. Some alternative names that the science world uses would include - virtual photons, Space/time, Bosons, Quarks, Quantum vacuum, Planck's constant and frame of reference. Thus, The science world is constantly playing a game of cat and mouse with the aether theory.

Michelson and Morley experiment -
This experiment assumes that the Earth moves through a stationary aether. Thus, They were looking for a speed of the aether which was equivalent to the speed of the Earth going around the sun. They didn't find this speed but found a much slower speed and concluded that the aether doesn't exist. The result was called a 'null result' which just means that they didn't get what they were expecting so they ignored the slower speed of the aether. Thus, We see the stupidity and arrogance of the science community by ignoring the results because it didn't match their expectations.
The truth is that the aether pushes the Earth around the sun. Thus, The speed of the aether is exactly the same as the gravitational constant. Thus, Gravity push is really aether push. Gravity doesn't pull in other words, It pushes from space. Pulling is another illogical concept. Aetheric pressure is all persuasive and holds matter together. This pressure is generated at the galactic centre where aether jets shoot out at right angles to the galactic spin.

https://www. Iflscience. Com/space/relativistic-jets/

https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=acxwIRoleuA
Adam_Godzilla

Con

"My opponent says " That time is not an object and that space is not an object" But then goes on to imply that space / time is an object. Wow! Now, How confused can a person get! Of course Con, 1+1 =3! Everybody knows that! "

Pro commits ad hominem. (ad hominem is a logical fallacy, An argumentative fallacy, And plainly a cheap move)

I never said space-time is an object. I merely said it is physical. Read my arguments again. And my definition of object as well thank you.

"Quote - "What is space though? The correct answer is no-one knows"
But then my opponent implies that space is really space/ time ("

That is exactly what I just said. Noone knows. Noone knows what space-time is either. What is it really? Energy? Aether? Definitely not matter. What is energy? What is energy made of? What are planck length fabric oompaloompas made of?

But my point is pro pretends to know exactly what it is.

"Yes folks, The science world must like the concept of an aether because they have several alternative names for it so that they don't have to mention that science world taboo word the 'aether'. "

That's because all the definitions of aether don't work in our physical calculations. Define me what you think "Aether" means. Afterwards, I'll tell you about stellar aberration.

"The truth is that the aether pushes the Earth around the sun. Thus, The speed of the aether is exactly the same as the gravitational constant. Thus, Gravity push is really aether push. Gravity doesn't pull in other words, It pushes from space. Pulling is another illogical concept. Aetheric pressure is all persuasive and holds matter together. This pressure is generated at the galactic centre where aether jets shoot out at right angles to the galactic spin. "

Theoretical, Theoretical, Theoretical. This reminds me of many flat earther arguments. They are designed to answer all questions, Whilst having zero evidence. You could do this even with theories as crazy as the earth is on top of the shell of a giant turtle.

And how does the aether push the Earth in only one direction, When it is theoretically present everywhere?

I am interested now in this aether argument. As a debater, I shouldn't, But I do accept the logic in the idea of an aether being pushed out of galactic centres, Or supermassive blackholes. Relativistic jets are truly a mystery.
Debate Round No. 3
Akhenaten

Pro

Quote -"I never said space-time is an object. "
Reply - True, But I just said that you INFERRED that it was an object.
Quote - "I merely said it is physical. "

Note - Scientific dictionary definition of the word physical - In physics, A physical body or physical object (or simply a body or object) is an identifiable collection of matter, Which may be constrained by an identifiable boundary, And may move as a unit by translation or rotation, In 3-dimensional space.

Thus, I have clearly demonstrated that my opponent doesn't understand the meaning and implications of his own terminology.
This is the exact same problem that so called geniuses like Einstein and Hawking had. They both didn't understand the meanings of words and how to use them properly. Thus, They both used the word time to describe a physical object. This is a violation of both grammatical rules and logic. Time is a concept and can't be magically turned into a physical object of any description. It is the equivalent of trying to turn happiness into an apple or an orange. It just doesn't make logical or grammatical sense. Happiness is a feeling or a concept while apples and oranges are objects. You can't have a happy apple or a happy orange. Thus, You can't have space/ time either. They don't mix very well. Lol

Quote - "And how does the aether push the Earth in only one direction, When it is theoretically present everywhere? "

Reply - A solar system is just a smaller fractal of a galaxy. A solar system will eventually evolve into a galaxy. A galaxy and a solar system are like drain holes with water circling around the plug hole in a spiral formation. The galactic centre contains a black hole which will destroy matter and return it to aether and shoot out the aether in jets at right angles to the galactic rotation. This is why all the planets move around the sun in the same direction and at the same relative rate according to their size and position. The aether is on its way to the sun and pushes the planets on its way. When the positive/negative aether reaches the sun, The aether particles of positive and negative will be squeezed together and will give off E =MC squared energy. That is two aether particles which are spinning at the speed of light will stop spinning. Thus C squared energy is created in the form of light and heat. This is all pure logic and is the only logical way that the universe can work. Note - All the evidence agrees with this theory. The sun's atmosphere is thousands of times hotter than the sun's interior. Thus, The aether must be the true source of the sun's energy. Thus the universe is energy rich and has an endless supply of aether which is the sun's fuel supply.

I have previously provided photos of galactic jets.

Robert Distini's website has similar theories to mine but my theory is more logical and complete.

My theory unifies matter, Light, Space, Energy and gravitational forces. The universe is made from one particle in 3 states -
positive, Negative and neutral or left spin, Right spin and no spin. The no spin state creates dimension shift or hole in space which the spinning particles fall into. Note - Some particles (about 4%) don't fall in and get stuck in a perpetual orbit. This is called matter.

Note - Most other theories are illogical or fail in this respect.

https://www. Youtube. Com/channel/UCyA7M234nykgKUSs_L9AjZQ
Adam_Godzilla

Con

This is not a debate any longer. Pro repeatedly fails to provide evidence. Only his own opinions. It's good food for thought. And it encourages me and other readers to research more. But ultimately, The debate is over, And Pro has let this debate devolve into a casual discussion.
Debate Round No. 4
Akhenaten

Pro

Faced with the inevitability of total logic must be very daunting. I have left my opponent with no choice but to spit the dummy and concede defeat. My opponent just wants to slavishly agree with every mainstream theory and never question anything. My last reference was with Robert Distinti's website which has over 50 videos of his theories. But did my opponent reference any of them in his reply? None!

This is a debating website which discusses ideas dummy. It is not about being safe and agreeable. It is up to you to find errors in my logic and calculations. But, I think I am wasting my time on this website because their are too many spoilt brats who have never had to work hard at anything in their short lives.

Note - I don't have any references (evidence) to give you because I am the originator of these concepts.
Adam_Godzilla

Con

Minus conduct points to Pro for insulting me.

"This is a debating website which discusses ideas dummy"
You're supposed to discuss ideas in the forums. Debate in debates. *facepalm*

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
Akhenaten spouts about dictatorship, Evil, And Adolf Hitler, But says he hopes that I will die of a heart attack one day.

Look in the mirror. "Lol".
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
Karma always gets you in the end. I don't have to do anything. Lol
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
I hope my opponent wins then he will actually think that he knows something and will go on in a permanent state of ignorance until he eats too many big macs and dies of a heart attack.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
Funny, I had 6 points yesterday and zero points today. I guess you can't beat a corrupt system.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
"You hate intellectuals and want everybody to be as dumb as you are so that you feel safe and secure"
I literally conceded that you won the debate. Nowhere did I say that I hate intellectuals. No where did I say I want to feel safe and secure. These are all false accusations, Kid.

I don't know why your parents didn't teach you not to make accusations that aren't true. But it's not ok. It's not ethical, And people will hate you for it. Do you want to be hated? You won't get anywhere in life being a slanderous and hated.

Please, Grow up, Thanks.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
You live in a fantasy world. I think you're a kid. Like an actual under 18 kid. If so, Forget what I said earlier, Just don't play with the adults, It's dangerous. Stop lying to people and stop saying stuff that isn't true about other people ok?

From now on, I can't take you seriously. There's no possible way you're an actual fully grown human adult. No adult would behave this way or talk like this. Tellytubbies? Is that show even running today? Jeez, I had no idea. Well have fun watching it i guess.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
You're making slanderous statements. How the fvck would you know what I want? I love intellectuals. Where the fvck did I say I wanted to murder intellectuals? You took that out of your own as*. You like coming up with bs don't you?
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
"Only a fool would enter a debate and think that they don't have to provide any proof or evidence. "

Yes! And you didn't provide any proof or evidence, Making you the fool. I can't believe that you finally see it now, It took a while didn't it?

I don't retake my statements, You're still insulting me, So ok, I'll bite back :).

So I'll restate the below:

I don't know what tiddlywinks are.

I do understand the subject matter of the debate. And I am educated. I can't say the same for you, Sadly. You seem to be highly illogical, Arrogant, And a sore loser. I was actually reserving my judgements about you, I had high hopes, But you proved me wrong. I will come away from this debate remembering you as not a brilliant person with great ideas, But an angry, Insecure, Person with a child-like mentality. I've lost all respect for you, Forever. I want you to sleep tonight and remember that you immature small brained buffoon.

There is only one thing more worthless than a stupid man. And that's an arrogant as*hole. But unfortunately you are both stupid and a jackas*.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
Note - Only a fool would enter a debate and think that they don't have to provide any proof or evidence.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
You are clearly very lazy as well as uneducated. Even tiddlywinks is above your level. That puts your general IQ well below 50 which means you are only a little bit smarter than a monkey. You hate intellectuals and want everybody to be as dumb as you are so that you feel safe and secure. Sounds like your personality is very similar to Pol Pot and the Khmar Rouge who had all intellectuals murdered and returned his country to pre-industrial villages.

https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
AkhenatenAdam_GodzillaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Don't know who made the more convincing argument. Adam_Godzilla should not lose debate since the burden of proof was on Akhenaten's end and he did not show it. If he made it clear that it was just thought experiments then that would give Against no argument for requiring evidence. Pro did add sources but he said it himself he is the creator of his idea. Pro loses conduct points for not staying civil.
Vote Placed by Speakerfrthedead 3 years ago
Speakerfrthedead
AkhenatenAdam_GodzillaTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Upon request from Con, I've read this debate. Pro loses on conduct. Edit: Con says what's done is done and I suppose I agree, so I'll revert my vote. But reading Pro's comments, he does not deserve it. What an ass.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
AkhenatenAdam_GodzillaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Yeah sorry, I really didn't understand any of that. My eldest brother once knew a professor in college once who never really enjoyed talking about advanced physics with most people since they could not understand it on his level. Personally I'd suggest challenging a person you feel confident has the same amount of education and similar understanding to a debate rather than have a debate open for anyone to accept. Pro loses conduct points for insults I suppose.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.