THIS POST IS FROM THE FUTURE!! TIME STILL DOESN'T EXIST!!

NEWS FROM THE FUTURE!

MAY, 2005: STAR WARS EPISODE THREE ROCKED! HOWEVER, THESE MOVIES SHOULD BE VIEWED 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

JULY 2006: WILLIAM SHATNER WAS GIVEN A TROPHY FOR BEATING PATRICK STEWART'S WHINY ASS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED THAT PICARD WAS A LAME CAPTAIN OF THE ENTERPRISE, AND KIRK WAS BY FAR THE BEST. STEWART CRIED LIKE A LITTLE GIRL.

JOE WINS EVERY DEBATE EVER!

Over four years have passed since anyone said anything about time.

Four years of time? No no, rhytmic rotation and motion that has been classified as time by feeble minds too primitive to understand "time's" true nature. The nature of motion.

Bitches.

I can't believe this page is still here....

At any rate, after over two years of no one debating my stance on time, I am the complete and total winner.

After a month and a half of no one saying anything, and over three months of no one arguing against me on the actual subject of time, I have to delcare myself the winner. Go me.

Riiiiight....

Jen moved from the fence to my side. Jen is also a hottie.

Joe 07 for the score.
Jen 21 for the hottie-ness.
Jon 00 and a 15 yard penalty for unsportmanlike conduct.

Not someone changing their mind. It was me convincing someone that you were wrong and I am right.

Joe 1
Jon 0

I proved I at least am winning. I pulled Jen from the middle to me. That is proof. Deal with it Nopa, I'm winning. It has been proven, it has been written, it has been done. Deal.

YEAH! That's exactly what I've been saying!! So I switched you from Jon's side to mine. Doesn't that mean I win? I don't mean I've proven anything, I just mean that between us three. I really don't care about winning, I was just trying to get under somebodies skin so that someone would write something. :)

Masdebation is not as fun as the real thing. It's more just practice. Like hitting a tennis ball against a wall. Fun, but in no way a game. For the game you need a partner.

At least somebody post that I've won. I feel lonely. :)

No Joe, you're wrong. Time exists. How do I know this? Because I can feel time passing. How do I know that what I feel is time which is abstract and not motion which can be observed on every sensory level? Because time is a fourth dimesion that we move along. How do we move along it without motion? Ok, no, time moves through us. How do I know that because it moves through us, it isn't created by us? Because it exists, its a fourth dimension we move along. How do I know this fourth dimension isn't just a perception? Because its a dimension. All other dimensions are perceptions of space you say? No all other dimensions exist. They don't? They are subjective? Well what about a mile? That's not subjective. A mile is a human construct? Yes but a mile is still a mile. A mile is a name? What do you mean it's far for some people and short for others? You mean running a mile for example? Like a mile is hard for me to run, but easy for someone like in boot camp? I see. So the distance is the same only because humans made up a name for it, but the opinion of it is different, and therefore space is subjective. What about hot and cold? Oh, you mean Jon thinks salsa is mild while Joe runs screaming from the room, lips numb, tounge a-blazing? I see. That's a good point. Time works the same way? How so? An eight hour day is long if you're at work but flies by if you're at Cedar Point? Yes, but eight hours still pass. Oh yes I see what you mean, that an hour is based on rhythmic motion. So you're saying that time is relative. And something that is relative is subjective and opinionated. And something that is subjective and opinionated is valid for whomever stated their subjective opinion. And so therefore it cannot truly exist, because it cannot truly be classified and looked at with any real objectivity, much like hot and cold don't truly exist because they are opinions. I see your point. So therefore time must be an individual thing right? Not something everyone moves through at once but something that applies to all of us individually. Ok, well I seem to be on the right track now, but that still doesn't really prove it doesn't exist. What if time, instead of something we move through, is something that moves through us? What is time then you ask? Is it like a ribbon or a string, a line, a force, a track, a road, a beam, a river... I guess I don't really know. How can I claim it exists when I really have no idea as to what it is I am talking about? I don't know, it just does. We can skip that for now? Ok. Let's move on. We'll just say that time, whatever the hell it is, moves through us. Wait, Joe, you're saying that if time is something that moves through us, doesn't that mean it exists because of us? How so? Yeah it's okay, you can use terms like hours and weeks, even though you've dismantled any argument I could present because of it. An hour for a rock? Yes a rock is effected by an hour. Indirectly, by other outside forces. Does a rock move. No. It just sits there. It does move? No way, how? Molecules? Atoms? The earth moves it? Wow, I never thought of that. No, I suppose the rock doesn't realize that time is passing by. Because it isn't conscious. No? More specifically? Hmm.. I don't know I give up. Memory? So wait, you're saying that it could be conscious, but if it had no memory then it wouldn't notice time passing? I don't understand. Uh huh. Wow, yeah. I guess you're right. If we had no memory we would have no notion of time passing because we wouldn't remember what has happened up until this point. Yeah I guess that the only way I know time has gone by is that I remember being somewhere else a while ago, and I'm not there now. Wow, that was going to be my next agrument because I was going to say, I know time has gone by, because I remember yesterday. That proves nothing at all you say? That help prove YOUR point you say? Wow, I'm intrigued Joe, go on. Memory is what time functions through. Ok I understand that from your rock thing. That the only reason we notice time is that we can remember being in other places, or wearing different clothes, or breathing in instead of breathing out. Is this why we don't notice time passing while we sleep? Oh wow, I always wondered about that. Do go on. So time is simply us remembering things from a year ago, or a month ago, and without it, time wouldn't pass? Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with you there, Joe. I mean, time does pass while we sleep, or while we are in comas and stuff, and we don't notice it. Others do though, yeah I guess that's true. But still, while I sleep my skin cells die, my lungs get infinitesimally weaker from breathing in and out, my heart gets a little weaker, I mean I have proof that time has passed. No? Then what is all that evidence. Proof that motion has occured. Yeah I guess that's true. And for me while all that moton was occuring, time seemingly didn't pass because I had no recollection, no memory or observation of it. So wow, time really IS a perception. A human construct created to rationalize and categorize motion. All the things that moved to get to where they are. I was wrong and you were right the whole time. Thank you Joe, thank you for showing me the truth, the light. I can now go live a satisfying and fulfilling life. You're skill for logic is unsurpassed and extraordinary. God bless you Joe. God bless us, everyone!!

So should I just debate myself? I'll call it "masdebation."

"Within the three dimensions there is nothing that actually alows motion to occur. " So? There's nothing that accounts for pumpkins pie's scrumptious taste within the three dimensions. There's nothing that accounts for the Infield Fly Rule, or for the color blue in the three dimensions. There's nothing that accounts for movement, again, so what? The three dimensions are just how we look at space. If something is tall, wide and fat that is a three dimensional observation. If it's running for a cheeseburger, that really doesn't have to be accounted for in the three dimensions. Nor does what kind of cheeseburger it is. However, if this is a 4th dimension, as I've been agreeing with, what does it measure? The fat dude running. That's motion.

That's it. I got a philosophy final to go to now. If anyone at all is still out there, I'd love to hear from you. Otherwise, I'm just gonna assume you are too astonished and intimidated by this awesome mind I have that you admit defeat.

Whos house? JOE'S HOUSE!!!
Whos house? JOE'S HOUSE!!!
Whos house? Say what? JOE'S HOUSE!!! Say what?
Martin!! Martin!! How y'all been? Martin!! You so crazy!

Profound. This logic is so profound, its ahead of it's time. Time you say? No such thing.

Hail to the victor valient.
Hail to the conquering hero.
HAIL! HAIL! to Joe Parcell
The Champion of debate!!

Logic, Logic Rap!
Logic, Logic Rap!
Logic, Logic Rap!
Go, Go, Go, Go!
Go Joey, go Joey go!
Go Joey, go Joey go!
Go Joey, go Joey go!
Go, Go, Go, Go!

Joe Joe baby, too cold too cold.

Peace, I'm outta here. Word to your mother.

So... did I win? Has my profound logic beaten you into submission? Congratulations to me!

Zzzzzzzzz......... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

If you agree with Jen completely then you also agree with me partially. Unless you are just going by her last post. Her previous posts have stated that time is an individual construct. Or something like that.

Let me ask this. Can speed occur without motion? I'm arguing that time works the same way. It's the best analogy I can draw.

Traces of time or evidence of the passage of time. Whatever you call it, neither could occur without motion. This is what I was trying to explain with the Pause Idea. If nothing moved there would be no traces of time or evidence of the passage of time, which is what both of you claim is your proof that time exists. Even your proof why time is not based on motion says that time is based on motion. On a very basic level I will explain this. You go into work and there are no clocks. It's light out when you go in, its dark out when you leave. You know (can prove) that time has passed because the earth rotated. If you went in and left and the sun was in the same spot in the sky you would have no proof that any time passed while you were in there. (Except customers coming and going, you remembering events that happened inside, cars going by and all that crap, your heart beating, blood pumping, breathing, your brain functioning... like I said, this was a basic example. However if all of it stopped, you'd have no idea that anything happened. This is what the Pause Idea was all about. Straight as an arrow... not even a curve, let alone a circle.) These Traces or Evidence of Time. What are they? Motion. Something is now somewhere else. You call this evidence of time, but it's still motion. Time is the human way to keep track of motion. You say motion is evidence of time, but no. Time is evidence of motion.

Seconds minutes etc, are a way to rationalize time. Time is a way to rationalize motion. I know, and I think we all agree that a minute is a human construct. You may think I can't get past that to hear you say that time is something more than seconds, minutes and hours. I agree. It's not much more, but it may be more. Time is an idea and minutes are a way to equate that idea. But it doesn't exist.

So so so sad, Jen, I thought we were on the same page for a little bit. Then you say something like "time exists because you can feel the traces of time?" Argh.

Jon would call this circular, (and yet has used this same kind of argument before and got on MY case for being circular... I digress.) I will not attack that because Jon says I am better than that, (and yet has used this same kind of argument before and got on my case for being "circular." Okay, now I digress.)

The traces of time. It always seems to go back to this when I say time doesn't exist. I am not arguing that yesterday did not occur. 1992 really happened. 1985 happened. However, for me, 1975 didn't happen, it is something I've read about. For my parents, 1975 happened. For me, it's a story, like people telling me what happened while I was out of the room. I come back in to see the couch vomitted on, the tables over turned, the window broken, and my friend passed out on the floor. My other friend tells me what happened, and I see the effects of what happened, I have no doubt that it actually happened, but I was however, not there to see it.

The traces of time, time, they are all observations of people. They are all judgements of the effects of motion. I plant a tree. The tree grows into a giant tree. Eventually the tree dies, termites set in, destroying the tree. The tree, weakend and dead, slowly collapses under its own weight. These are your traces of time. The tree growing, the tree dying, the termites moving in, the tree collapsing are all used in your mind as markers to judge how much "time" has passed. But time is a human construct. Like the pages of a book. You read through a book, the story evolves, the characters evolve, conflicts happen, conflicts are resolved and they walk off into the sunlight. The page numbers are "time." You say you can see that the story is going on because ten pages ago the characters were not at the point they are now. These page numbers are just the human minds way of referencing what has happened up to this point. And what has happened is that things have moved. I'm not just talking about cars and busses and people and tv shows. I'm talking about brain synapses, molecules spinning, the earth rotating, breathing in, breathing out. Now, imagine that these page numbers are rapid. As soon as the human mind can percieve an instant, another page is added, so that at the end of a day there are like billions of pages. Looking back at these pages would in appearance be like looking at a flip book, or a piece of film spooling through a projector. This instant is different than the next, but there is only an infinitesimal difference between the two that they seem to almost be perfectly alike. Only a couple things have changed. The atoms spinning around the molecules in my body have made a revolution, the earth has moved on in its rotation 1/240000000 of its completion. And instead of the teacher saying the words "E equals M C" he's now saying "Squared."

The only reason time seems to us to exist as anything beyond motion is because we have this thing called "memory." We learn because we can remember the words "E=MC^2" coming out of our professors mouth. But this memory is nothing more than the human, animal, conscious beings way of categorizing and referencing motion that has occured and led up to the point where everything is now. We call this referencing "time" because we need a word for it. It exists as nothing outside a word and human perception of motion.

And Jen... not that I cannot rationalize this in some other form, which I can, and may if I feel like it, but you say this in your last response:

Speed does not mean motion because speed depends on time and "...time is totally independent of motion." and you prove this by saying "v = d/t" So then what is velocity? How fast something is moving, right? Or more accurately...

ve·loc·i·ty (v-ls-t) n. pl. ve·loc·i·ties
1.) Rapidity or speed of motion; swiftness.
2.) Physics. A vector quantity whose magnitude is a body's speed and whose direction is the body's direction of motion.

So doesn't your basic equation prove that time is dependant on motion? Or at least there is a major connection? Besides, it's a human way of rationalizing physics. Math itself is the same way. We see a single object and call it "one." We see another and call it "one." Then they sit next to each other and we call it "two." Then we make them do tricks by saying 2x - 45.2(88y - 1/x) = pi. So the word time is in the equation for velocity. So what? The time is measured in seconds, minutes, hours, whatever. These are all human constructs describing a rhytmic motion.

So yeah. That was kind of my closer. So word up.

By the way, Jen. I'm really glad you joined this blog. Your ideas are fresh and insightful. Nothing against Jon, your ideas are cool too. Like when you said you like pork. :-)

Well, it's obvious Jonny has gone bye-bye. Jen, what do you got left?

By the way, I just realized as administrator of this blog, I can edit everyone's post. I didn't though. Jon's post was really, "I like pork." Sad, isn't it?

Well... now that the cat is away... the mice will play!!! MWAHAHAHA!!!! (*evil laugh*).

Jen, jesus. Her first shot at us and she fired a good one. Quoting famous people and everything... sounds like Jackie. :) Now I will quote the infamous words of one Samuel L. Jackson by saying, "Allow me to retort."

Time travels through us. Due to it almost being Thanksgiving, I'm going to use this colorful argument. So does turkey. If Mach says that time is relative, this is where I have the problem. How can something relative truly exist. Relativity is subjectivity. Opinionated. If I say the salsa is hot, and Special K thinks its mild, who is right? Now this could be misconstrued as me saying the salsa doesn't exist. No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying the description of the salsa cannot be accurate, can not be specified, simply because it's an opinion. You go on to say time differs from being to being. Insects to humans I believe. Cool. I buy that totally. And I think that you are aiming up towards my point in a way my belligerent argument never seemed to go. "To sum up, time exists within every living organism as an 'individual speed of consciousness.'" Speed means motion. The way you observe, the way you percieve, the time it takes for light to hit an object and bounce into your eye. The amount of time your brian takes to register it, it's all based on neurological motion. The time is based on the motion. Brain cells reacting, synapses firing, reations upon reactions on a molecular level are all motion.

My contention is that "time" is what we call a fourth dimension. I'll go with you that far Jonny. But what are the characteristics of a "Dimension?" Again let's look at the first three to get a basis on what a dimension is. Length, width, depth, all descriptions of space. Germany is one way, Brazil is another way, and the Hubble is another way. These ways don't truly exist, they are just measurements of positions, relative to other positions. Time is the same way. It's just saying now is now, "then" was this long ago. Then giving a name like hour, year, decade, to the amount of things that have happened between to "this long ago."

Length, width, and depth are relative terms too. To a guy who's afraid of heights, the Empire State Building could be a long way up, but to a skydiver, it's just a quick hop to the ground. But they are basically saying we are here, and this is this far away. Then giving a name like feet, yards, miles, to the amount of space that lies between here and "this far away." Time passes in the same fashion. An eight hour day at a metal stamping plant makes you feel suicidal, while eight hours of a surprise birthday party seems to pass in a heartbeat. The only reason we know they pass over the same amount of "time" is because some things in the universe move rhythmically. The sun is the metronome of the earth, and we call the earths revolution a day. We call the earths rotation a year. But revolution and rotation are both words describing motion. For some people, days take longer than other people. For a kid waiting to get into Disney World, an hour takes forever. For someone craming for a test, an hour is over too quickly.

See I'm describing time as something outside of motion. I'm describing it as a perception. An individual, relative perception of motion. Motion of the clock spinning, motion of the earth spinning, these are rythmic patterns of motion to which we base "time" on. However, this is solely "time of day" which can also be stated as "fraction of earths revolution." But these are not time. Time is individual. A perception. Do perceptions "exist?" No. They are opinionated. They are not objective. Jen is 5' 2 1/2" (notice I didn't forget the 1/2.) I am 6' 0". Paul "The Big Show" Wight is 7' 2". So, am I tall or short? Ask both of them and you'll get a different answer, because height is a relative concept that we humans have given labels to, measurements to describe our perceptions. We have perceptions, but they are our own personal ideas, our own personal opinions. They do not exist like grass exists, like birds exist, like rocks exist. It's an idea like hot and cold, tall and short, near and far. Time is not a thing. It does not exist.

My argument is not that time is man made. My argument is that time doesn't exist and that the word "time" is man made. It's a description, a way for us to remember things that happened yesterday. What moved, what died, what was born, what was eaten, where the sun started in the sky, and where it moved to. And seeing that I am arguing against the existence of something, the burden of proof doesn't really lie on me, because I can't really gather proof for something I don't think is there in the first place. I don't need to argue for non-existance, but rather argue against all claims of existance. However, I just put up a fight for why I believe it is not there. It's up to you, (meaning mainly Jon, seeing as Jen is kind of on the fence so far.) to show proof of it really being there, this road called "time" being on the map. Other than simply saying in so few words "I believe it's this way, because that's what I believe." (ahem... who is circular now?) I mean I could believe in the Tooth Fairy, or that the world is going to end at the stroke of midnight tonight, but it won't really surprise you when you wake up tomorrow at 8am and there's no quarter under your pillow.

I have before stated that time doesn't need a perciever to go by. In fact my exact words were, "Perception implies a perciever. That isn't really necessary, but as I said, I can't really think of a better word." Perhaps that was unclear. I can forsee that being a problem being as it could be taken to go against everything I've said here. When I stated this I meant things could move, the earth rotating around the sun, the wind blowing, the trees growing, the seasons changing, without man or any other conscious being around to witness it. However, this is only motion. If nothing is conscious for it, there is no perception, but there is still motion. Things are still happening in rhythmic fashion. Can something still be tall if it is not percieved by something? Can you have a long day if you don't exist? No. Motion is still going on, but it's much like a television you leave on in your apartment while you go home for the weekend. Sure, Seinfeld was on in your bedroom, but you only know that through logical conclusions you draw from looking at T.V. Guide when you get back to the apartment. And you still have never seen the Soup Nazi episode.

Snoogans.
- Joey

Suddenly, I am very afraid....

I see your point.

That doesn't mean I agree with your point. I just see it. However, I am to worn out to argue now.

I will get back to you. Peace out hombre.

Ok, I'm not changing my mind, I'm clarifying. I didn't think you were understanding what it was I was saying, to I tried it again in different words. Maybe I said it wrong the first time, maybe I was unclear. Maybe I'm not understanding you. So forget everything I've said before and work with this.

This Pause Idea. Idea sounds less scientific than Theory. This Idea is more philosophical than scientific. It is my belief that time is based on motion. I think that if everything in the universe stopped, so would time.

I understand why you could construe this as "circular" as it was said before. The sentence before it stated, "If there was no motion time would have no effect, no purpose, no existance." However, this was not a premise, this was a conclusion. The paragraph before was the premise for this conclusion. If that sentence was a premise, the yes, by all means, it would be circular. I would be trying to prove that time is based on motion, and one of my premises would be that time was based on motion. That's retarded. I know. But that isn't what I was saying. I was saying that due to the statements I had made before the conclusion, I have come to this conclusion.

This Algebra Idea. Restated. I believe that time is a perception of motion. The word "Time" = the phrase "A measurement of motion." Therefore the two statements that 1.) Time is based on motion. and 2.) Motion is based on time. Could "algebraically" be reworded as 1.) A perception of motion is based on motion. and 2.) Motion is based on a perception of motion. You don't agree with the idea that the word "Time" = the phrase "A measurement of motion." So therefore, this idea doesn't disprove your argument. I was simply clarifying mine. In believing that time is a perception of motion, I cannot agree that motion is based on time, because logically, to say, "Motion is based on a perception of motion." doesn't make much sense. Just like Chewbacca.


But, if you want something new on this subject you are going to have to contribute too. I thought in my last post, I did a pretty good job of explaining why I thought the Pause Idea wasn't circular, and in the last post and the post before it why the Algebra thing wasn't flawed. If I didn't I apologize, and I hope I have clarified it in this one. I'm sorry to if my last post seemed to be too agressive, or offended you in any way. I really hope you aren't taking this personally, because as always you my dog.

But you see, I think that this Pause thing and the Algebra thing are really minor points. I don't see why they have been the focus of this whole debate. So lets attack this conundrum from a different perspective.

I say time is the perception of motion. You say time is a 4th Dimension we move along. I've stated that dimensions are perceptions and therefore if time is a 4th dimension, this is proving my point. I've asked you to be more specific. So far I have not gotten any kind of a response on that request. You feel I'm not actually adressing what you're saying, as I feel you are not doing to me. So now allow me to quote and respond.

"Yeah, I use terms like seconds, thats the only vocabulary I have to discus time. You ask is it 2001, 2096 or whenever. It isn't any of those things. Time, as I see it, doesn't get defined in terms of years. It is a dimesion, it is measured by years. It might be 2001, or 2096 depending on the calendar you use. The width of my desk is 3.5 fee, 1.1566666 yards, or a little over a meter (but the meter doesn't really count, bloody metric). Does that change what the distance is? No. The distance is the same, no matter how you measure it. " I agree, I used terms like 2001, 2096, because it was the only vocabulary Ihad to discuss time.

"You've, instead of responding in a fashion that allows for rebuttal, simply said that I haven't answered the question; or that I haven't 'actually' thought about your 'pause theory.' While, at the same time ignoring questions I've raised about your 'pause theory' and about your logic. You've simply started off by saying something that I did, then didn't actually respond. You're better than that." I don't see how what I have said is any different from what you have said about the algebra and pause idea.

"The way I see it is this. I can't believe that time doesn't exist for one simple reason. I can remember things that happened in the past. Some of those things could very well have taken place at exactly the same place in the universe. One year, then something else the next. If time was simply a perception of motion as you say, than those things could have hapened at exactly the same place, w/out time, there is no distiction between location besides the physical location." I have addressed this idea. (11/15/2001 9:22:10)

"But I say that time exists. Time dilation, in my opinion, proves that time is something that we can alter, we can change. " I have addressed this idea. I have stated that altering motion (Independent Variable) can alter time (Dependent Variable). You have responded by basically agreeing with me by stating the following:

"I mean, you said it yourself... "If you alter motion, you can alter time." Can alter time. Altering motion does not necisarily alter time." To which I then responded:

"Of course it doesn't. If I turn my head to the left, I don't speed up time. Time dialation proves that it is affected by motion. Can you name something else that affects time? Heat? No. Moisture? No. Morphine? Maybe." The point I'm trying to make is that if motion is the only thing that can affect time, then it must have a very powerful relationship to it. If motion occurs because time passes, then motion would really have no affect on time because motion is the passive part of the equation. But as you say, it does.

"First off... If I could invite her, belive me I would have already taken care of it. I am not, however the owner of this blog and therefore have no power to invite her." Oh yeah. Here's another algebraic equation. Joe = Retard.

So ok, square one. I say time is perception of motion. Perhaps perception is a bad word, but I can't really think of a better one. Perception implies a perciever. That isn't really necessary, but as I said, I can't really think of a better word. You say motion is our way to observe time, but my argument is that time is the way we record motion. But all I really want from you is a definition of time. You disagree with me without giving me your idea of what it is. That is SO Socrates man. And they killed Socrates. You've said its a 4th dimension, but I've shown why that helps my point. So I need from you a better or maybe more specific or clearer definition of what you think this "time" is. This is like the fifth time I've asked you for this. Please add something new to this, clarify yourself. Please.

By the way, I noticed you got Jen on the Three Pimps page. I think she wants to be on this one too, I'd love it if you invited her.

Ok... it's go time.

Algebra. Right. I'd like for you to stop arguing semantics and actually say something meaningful. "Time causes motion" and "motion causes time" are not equal? By God, stop the press. No shit. This is like a subtraction problem, the first and second term need to be in the first and second place. X-Y is not the same as Y-X. But in both statements, X=X and Y=Y. In ours, Time = Time, and Motion = Motion. If in my case I said Time = Perception Of Motion, then I can substitute Perception of Motion for time, like saying X=T; X-Y=T-Y, Y-X=Y-T. WHERE IS THE FREAKING FLAW?!? Ask Jen, she's a math major, I think I'm right.

I said Time = Perception of Motion, because you STILL say time exists, yet refuse to define it everytime I ask. I believe it's only perception. You say it's a fourth dimension. Fine I will agree, a fourth dimension. It's still perception. Its still a measurement of motion. That is all. Look at the other dimensions. Length, width, depth. Do THEY exist? No, they are perception. An inch is what we've labeled a unit of length. Show me an inch. You can't do it. You can show me something that MEASURES an inch. You can spread your fingers apart and say THIS is an inch. But it's really just two fingers and some air. The fingers are spread apart to what MEASURES to be an inch. You cannot hand me an inch. I can't chew on an inch, I can't swallow an inch. It doesn't exist, it's a perception, a measurement of space. Time, if it's a fourth dimension like you say, doesn't exist, it's a perception, a measurement of motion.

Onto the Pause Theory. It's an idea. I'm not PROVING ANYTHING! I'm not using my example to prove anything. It's a question. Philosophical. If I ask you if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? If you say no, that IS NOT CIRCULAR! You aren't proving anything. You aren't using the fact that no one hears it to prove no one hears it. I'm saying I think that time would stop if everything stopped based on what I believe time is. THAT IS NOT NOT NOT CIRCULAR. But in my 1776, and 1985 examples, I'm arguing my point. I could hit some semantics too, like by asking "If time is a fourth dimenson we move along, how do we move without motion?" But I'm not going to go there. Not yet anyway, though I would like to know how we move along it. But you seem to always shy away from answering the real questions.

So years are a unit, decades are a unit, created by man, different by what calendar you use. I know, that's not what I was asking. When I said is it 2001 or 2096, it was a question as to where we are along this "fourth dimension" not "what day is it." What is to stop us from suddenly jumping in this dimension of yours fifty "years" ahead. Would we notice such a jump? I don't argue my point badly, you understand my point badly. Watches, calendars, sundials are way to measure "time." I know, that is SO far away from what I am even talking about. Calling it 2001, 2096, 5,000,000.2 or Fabulous Fred, doesn't matter, now is now. Things are where they are. They have momentum to move further into the future. But if it's a line. A time line, this fourth dimension, do you agree that where we are on this magical line now is different from where we will be when we call it 2096? My question was, how do you know we aren't there now? And yesterday didn't occur ninety-five "years" ago? I mean defining time as "A fourth dimension we move along." is NOT a definition. I have through out this and other posts disproved how a "fourth dimension we move along." besides being unbelievably vague and ambiguous, has to "exist."

So like I said, PLEASE this time, instead of arguing these semantics arguments over "flawed" algebra, and "circular" logic, try to get to the real debate, and answer my question I've been asking. If time exists, what specifically is it? Where is it? That's all I'm asking. You've asked for evidence that time doesn't exist, and I'm giving you ideas as to why it doesn't. I'm asking you for proof that it does exist, and you are arguing my algebra. I gotta say, I think I'm winning this debate. So give me proof of this magical line, that I haven't already refuted (Time Dilation) and used to prove my own point.

And hand me a bag of inches while you're at it.

So... apart from your shying away from ACTUALLY answering my question, did you have to say? The question I posed to you is "What is Time?" A fourth dimension that we move along? Does that mean its a thing? It exists? Is it a mystical force that can be manipulated?

I want you to actually think about this Pause Theory. This is not scientific, but philosophical, therefore it really cannot be proven, seeing as we can't stop absolutely everything in the entire universe. If there were no motion on every level, would time pass? Saying "I don't know" does not disagree with me.

You can remember things. So can I. And there's no way things could happen in the same place in the universe. The key word here that I don' t think you are understanding is EVERYTHING. If everything were in the same place, then yes, the exact same moment would occur. If things from 1985 repeated today, everything in the universe in the same spot was in then, then it would be 1985 again. Your body would be in the same spot, the dead hair and skin cells you've shed would be back, your bones would be the same size as they were, your heart, and body, liver, kidneys, teeth, and eyes would have the youth of a five year old. Your brain would be in the same spot, be the same size, have the same cells, the same synapses, the same brain cells, the same knowledge, the same motivation, and the same experience as it did in 1985. If EVERYTHING were in the same spot, with the same motion, it would be the same time.
I mean for a second, lets suppose you could hop in DeLorean and go back in time without interacting. Less like Doc, more like Ebeneezer Scrooge. You're a ghost. You hopped back to 1776. Wouldn't everything be in the same place? Every atom, to every comet to every galaxy to every spec of space dust. You would agree that you are back in 1776. Now if absolutely EVERY single thing moved backwards from where it is to the spot it was in in 1776, would it not be 1776 again?

If you don't think so then, let me ask you this. Is it 2001? Is it 2092? Is it 3862? How do you know?

Altering motion does not necessarily alter time. What in the blue hell is your point? Of course it doesn't. If I turn my head to the left, I don't speed up time. Time dialation proves that it is affected by motion. Can you name something else that affects time? Heat? No. Moisture? No. Morphine? Maybe.

See everything moves everywhere all the time. If this motion were a television show, it would be called "Time." You would see something move from point A to point B. Then the show would be over. It would not be a good show. Unless that something was Claire Forlani.

Wrong. Let me tell you why.

You can do it algebraically. A = Time; B = Motion. A causes B or B causes A. Now it's my contention that Time = perception of motion = A. You don't agree with the last statement. The algebra isn't flawed, your idea of the definition is.

There is nothing circular about my Pause Theory either. (This is what it will now be called. Notice the capital letters.) Of course it's unprovable, but so is the theory of relativity. If it were provable, it would be called the law of relativity. Yet people put faith into it. So maybe mine dwells in a little more of a philosophical realm. But it's like a movie. If you pause a movie, the characters don't notice you did it. If you paused life, no one would notice either. Nothing would age, nothing would happen. Time would not happen.

Now as far as your wonderful time dilation theory. Thank you. This proves my point. If you alter motion, you can alter time. Therefore time is dependant on motion. As I have said all along. If you move something faster (IV) the time slows or speeds up (DV). Now if you could wind a clock really fast to make a sock monkey dance, then motion would be dependent on time. As you say. That, however, doesn't work.

So define time. I say it's the perception of motion. You say no, time can be effected by motion. So what is time? Is it like the Force? If you say it exists then the burden of proof is on you to define it. Fourth dimension or not. Whatever. Look at the other three. Length, width and depth. Do they exist? Or are they perceptions? Can I hold out may hand and say, "Hey, this is my new width I got a KB Toys today." No.

Everything in the universe is moving. Everything. An hour ago it was somewhere else than it is now. The earth is in a different position relative to the sun than it was an hour ago. This motion seems consistant, so we divied it up and called a 24th of earth's rotation an hour. But all it is is motion. All it is is remembering where we were, where we are, and where were headed. Past, Present, and Future. We know that tomorrow, the earth will be 1/365 further around its revolution of the sun. This is based on consistant motion. The passing of time, call it whatever you want, or call it nothing at all, is based solely on motion. From atoms to galaxies. If nothing moved from atoms to galaxies, time would stop.

Look at that graph we always see, about the nature of time as speed approaches C. Then look at it and see what it says as speed approaches zero.

No. So let's go.

You say time is a fourth dimension. You got that from H.G. Wells. Whether you know it or not. What were going to plagarize the whole thing... do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? What is that... is that your thing, you read some obscure passage and try to pawn it off as your own to try to impress some girls, to embarrass my friend? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in about fifty years you're going to do some thinking of your own and you're going to realize there are two certainties in life. One: Don't do that. And two: you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on an education you could've gotten for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library. But hey if there's a problem, maybe we could step outside, and you know... figure it out.

Ok, that entire last paragraph was from "Good Will Hunting." On to the real debate. :)

Ok so after some consideration I realize our debate comes basically down to, if I understand your argument, the basic chicken or the egg debate. You say you can't have motion without time, and I say you can't have time without motion. But beyond that....

You say you can't have motion without time. I say "time" is the perception or knowledge or measurement of motion. And therefore algebraically your statement becomes: You can't have motion without "the perception of motion." This I'm not sure I agree with. I do agree that you cant have the perception of motion without motion. Which then, algebraically becomes: You can't have "time" without motion. My point.

Do I believe time would go on without someone there looking at their watch? Yes. Because motion always occurs. If motion did not occur, down to a molecular level, time would not occur.

Try to imagine this. Lets say every single molecule in the entire universe stopped for what would under normal circumstances be ten seconds. Then simultaneously, all motion started up again. Lets say this happened right as you finish this sentence. Would you notice it? Or would it go completely unnoticed because your synapses in your brain froze, rendering you unable to realize that it had happened, the molecules in your skin and organ cells froze, rendering you unable to age during the pause, the molecules on the entire planet froze making the day freeze right where it was, the light shooting through space towards the earth stopped, the rotation of the moon stopped, the expansion of the universe stopped, the motion of air, water, fish, all stopped. Would any time have passed? I say "for what would under normal circumstances be ten seconds" because the only way ten seconds would have passed is if someone saw that it had passed, and the only way for that to have happened would be for someone to be moving to notice it, which in this pause isn't happening. During this pause ten seconds, ten minutes, a billion years, it doesn't matter. And for all we know it could have just happened. Did you just notice a billion years pass? If there was no motion, you wouldn't have noticed it. If there was no motion, time would have no effect, no purpose, no existance. Therefore time is based on motion. Not the other way around.

I will respond when I can devote some serious thought to it. Now, I'm just thinking about how they fit ten clowns in that little car. And that's really not a serious thought, that's pretty funny.

Word. Ok, I think the first thing we need to do is establish our sides. You know, say our points fully without arguing against the others yet. Also, let's set up a few rules, namely, lets try to keep this slightly professional. Refrain from words like "numbnuts," or "jackass."

My side of this argument is that time does not exist. I believe trees exist, and horses exist, but time does not. You cannot hold time, or push time. Time can not be knocked down. Time is an idea. Like hope. Hope doesn't exist, it's an idea. "Time" is nothing more than a measurement of motion. Motion of the earth, motion of a car, motion of a clock, motion of an atom, motion of a synapse in your brain, time is an observation of motion passing. It's what we choose to call that observation. We notice that what once was on the table is now on the floor, we say time has passed. Time is not something that can be touched or altered without altering motion, so it's obvious the two are directly related. Is it then that far of a stretch to believe that it is just two ways of looking at the same thing?

I'm also going to post this chronologically so people can read along. The ball's in your court, Trebek.