is it time? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

is it time?
in Science

By maxxmaxx 205 Pts
assume that a person is sent to a planet.  now, using a time machine they also send me,  but 1 year before the other person.  we are both alive  but a year apart in time. does this suggest that the past exists independently of the present?
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • DeeDee 1556 Pts
    ****** . does this suggest that the past exists independently of the present?

    No it doesn’t because your whole scenario is based on an assumption, also the past does not exist 
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    well, I did say assuming.   and if you can prove the past does not exist, then by all means do so.  other than that I will wait for someone who can answer a rhetorical question with a bit more coherent ability than you always show. again, IF time travel was possible and the scenario took place as I written it, then how can both of us be alive at the same time yet be a year apart in time? @Dee
  • DeeDee 1556 Pts
    @maxx

    Another typically ridiculous debate topic made Maxx , it’s based on an assumption so any possible scenario can be put forward on assumption , do you get that ? 

    ****you can prove the past does not exist, then by all means do so

    Ah right that game is it? Ok if you can prove purple dragons don’t exist then by all means do so 
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    edited January 23
    have you not ever heard of the block universe?  or how physicists actually sent particles of light back in time? it is very possible to send information backward into the past.  perhaps you should look this up before you state something as ridiculous. I am not even asking about the feasibility of time travel; I am simply asking about a time travel paradox.  or are you completely incapable of answering a thought experiment ? @Dee
  • @maxx

    Scientist did not actually send particles of light back in time... They simulated it on a quantum computer...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    edited January 23
    I know what a simulation is and it is very possible to do so.  seems like no one here can answer a question as posted. it is a thought experiment of a paradox just like the grandfather paradox.  if people are unable to reply to it then why bother answering? https://www.livescience.com/19975-spooky-quantum-entanglement.html @Plaffelvohfen
  • The conditions on the planet when you arrive are different from the conditions when the next person arrives 1 year later. The difference may be slim, but it is there, and these conditions are interdependent. For example, the sun the planet rotates around slowly burns its thermonuclear fuel, which alone already has some short-term impact on the average temperature on the planet.
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    the thought experiment relies on the idea that we at one point, perhaps after  the first year, is that we both will be alive on the same planet, yet a year apart in time@MayCaesar
  • @maxx

    You wrote that scientist actually did send light backward in time, fact is they did not...  

    Excerpt from article : 
    The results are fascinating and spur the imagination, but don't start investing in flux capacitors yet. This experiment also shows us that sending even a simulated particle back in time requires serious outside manipulation. To create such an external force to manipulate even one physical particle's quantum waves is well beyond our abilities.

    "We demonstrated that time-reversing even ONE quantum particle is an unsurmountable task for nature alone," study author Vinokur wrote... In other words, this technology remains bound to quantum computation. Subatomic spas that literally turn back the clock aren't happening...


    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    if you do nogt wish to answer the question as I posted it, then do not answer. the post is not about if time travel is possible@Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 1556 Pts
    @maxx

      or how physicists actually sent particles of light back in time? 

    No they didn’t , google is your friend 
  • maxx said:
    assume that a person is sent to a planet.  now, using a time machine they also send me,  but 1 year before the other person.  we are both alive  but a year apart in time. does this suggest that the past exists independently of the present?
    No. 
  • Playing along. The most basic suggestion is each person arrives on the planet in a different planetary orbit. yet, one person has been made younger by the journey 8,760 hours, not one year.
  • The decimal point in Time is proving a mathematic post decimal infraction of mathematics not that matter, energy,  mass reoccurrence is not limitedly or unlimitedly possible. Only one person has been said to have changed place in a time period. They did not change Time demission which describe a basic scale of proportional area if I explain that in a way that is understood clearly.
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    oh and by the way dingbat,  you say the past does not exist;  I suggest you look uo into the cosmos for everthing that we can see is the past@Dee
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
  • DeeDee 1556 Pts
    @maxx

    ****oh and by the way dingbat,  you say the past does not exist; 

    By the way Mad Maxx  for me only the present exists 

    *****I suggest you look uo into the cosmos for everthing that we can see is the past@Dee

    Read above 

  • @maxx ;
    Time basically states the past in constantly recreated by motion. 

  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    that depends on how you interpret time.  many physicists believe that past, present and future is all happening at the same time and it is only our perspective to it that decides where we are@John_C_87

  • They are happening at the same time and by motion move. In basic just like numbers.
  • You an other’s including Physicists interpret time.

    We calibrate then synchronize time. A force of Energy is divided by (0.5) forming two direction, right angle with law of motion is using inertia to rule out energy in proportional scaled applying calibration to distance. (Hour: Minute: Second). Math takes energy it only gives answers.

    Mathematical reason to multiple energy by conversion to decimal is when capturing energy out of the universe it will always represents a fraction of all energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, basically stating any method used to form energy as light was already in motion before a test. FYI includes Vacuum.

    My fourth law of motion:

    Gravity is elasticity, modulation, and reverberation when devised by the gravity of number with other number, or numbers. It is not opinion as suggested. Numbers display all law of motion currently at play. The equal sign would be the momentum of gravitation or the result motion call gravity. Centrifugal force and inertia are simply forms of plus, minus, division, and multiplication depending on how they are assembled.

    Perspective:

    We to see the apple fall from the tree and noticed it appeared not to stop the earth's motion. Even a very little. Time tells us it does ( 00:00:00) because a natural synchronizing does not take place between the year and two principle of day.


  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    it is a bit different to look at time from a single planet point of view or even an entire galaxy; time is different universally than it is at the level of the earth; unless eistein was wrong@John_C_87
  • DeeDee 1556 Pts
    edited January 29
    @John_C_87


    Since knowledge of the objects in space and time is a priori, the architectonic of gin and tonic is a practical reason can not take account of our a priori knowledge, but practical reason (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is that (Mickey Mouse said that this is true) excludes the possibility of our understanding. The thing in itself proves the validity of the man in the moon  of our faculties, but the discipline of practical reason stands in need of, insomuch as metaphysics relies on our ideas, our experience.
    Since knowledge of the Marx brothers movies Means We can deduce that Donald Duck said. the Ideal of pure reason, irrespective of all empirical conditions, is by its very nature contradictory, as will easily be shown in the next section. Our understanding, irrespective of all empirical conditions, is a body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a posteriori, by means of analytic unity. It is obvious that our experience depends on, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the paralogisms of practical reason. Has it ever been suggested that we can deduce that there is no relation bewteen our judgements and the intelligible objects in space and time? 

  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    the distinction between past, present and future, is only a stubbornly persistent illusion(albert Einstein). do you consider his works in the realm of meta physics? @Dee
  • DeeDee 1556 Pts
    @maxx

    The transcendental aesthetic is the clue to the discovery of our judgements. The phenomena are by their very nature contradictory; certainly, the objects in space and time would be falsified. For these reasons, space, in other words, is what first gives rise to our sense perceptions, as we have already seen. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, it must not be supposed that necessity is a body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a posteriori. (In view of these considerations, time (and there can be no doubt that this is true) is the clue to the discovery of the Antinomies.) As is shown in the writings of Galileo, it remains a mystery why, in accordance with the principles of philosophy, the Ideal of pure reason exists in the noumena. By means of the thing in itself, what we have alone been able to show is that the noumena are what first give rise to, on the other hand, philosophy.
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    should you not give credits to this speech  it sure seems like ive read it before?@Dee
  • DeeDee 1556 Pts
    edited January 25

    You haven’t the words are mine 
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    edited January 25
    sure.  it sounds right out of kants critique of pure reason.  but hey, thanks,,, I have that book somewhere and just need to find it  @Dee
  • maxx said:
    it is a bit different to look at time from a single planet point of view or even an entire galaxy; time is different universally than it is at the level of the earth; unless eistein was wrong@John_C_87
    Time is not derived by the planet time has only been synchronized to one planet. It is for the best that we will presume general relativity was a limit set on Einstein by Einstein.
  • Dee did not say:
    @John_C_87 ;

    We can deduce that the Ideal of reason, respective of all empirical easily understood, irrespective of all condition, body of demonstrated science be it math, and all be posteriori in means of analytic unity. It is that our experience depends respective of paralogisms of refusal to reason in basic and complex math. Suggesting that we can simplify that which is to logical creating relation between of measured judgements and the intelligible object outside time. 

    Took some liberties....please forgive.
    Motion is energy.
    Energy is neither created or destroy it changes form and direction.
    Energy cannot change form without changing direction.

  • DeeDee 1556 Pts
    edited January 26
    @Maxx ;

    Right Maxx , you go ahead and prove me wrong 
  • DeeDee 1556 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Hi John , your statement is interesting but seems to have a Nagellian what " isness " about it , can you address how your hypothesis accounts for a Kiprean model of modal semantics? 

    We talked of this before but frankly  I found your piece to lack the  clarity I seek .....thank you in advance 
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    can you give me an example of how energy can not change form with out a change in direction?@John_C_87
  • The speed of light in vacuum.
  • @Dee ;
    What semantic do you feel is implied by time.
  • DeeDee 1556 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Read the piece again I cannot explain it any better 
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    edited January 26
    everyone knows already  you plagerized   oi believe it is out of the first chapter of kants book called@ prolegomena to any future metaphysics written in 1783. any one who ever read kant, would know instantly that this is his style of writingDee
  • DeeDee 1556 Pts
    @maxx

    ****everyone knows already  you plagerized   oi believe it is out of the first chapter of kants book called@ prolegomena to any future metaphysics written in 1783. any one who ever read kant, would know instantly that this is his style of writingDee


    If that's the case why don't you prove it ? 

    Should be easy so go on and print the first chapter and prove me wrong?

    Everytime your corrected you resort to lying whys that do you think?
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    edited January 26
    instead of me reading both books to find one passage I will simply post a page out of his book so everyone here can see that the writing style and the works are exactly the same@Dee http://faculty.washington.edu/conormw/Teaching/Files/PhilMath/Winter_2015/Readings/Kant-Prolegomena.pdf   anyone can see that this is the same and if you push the issue I can easily report you for plagerizing without credits, and they can easily see the style is exactly the same
  • DeeDee 1556 Pts
    edited January 26
    @maxx

    Again I've exposed your web of lies and if what you say was correct surely you could post the piece by Kant word for word instead you post a piece with 268 pages and as a defence  you're a liar who when asked to prove his allegations cannot .....Print up Kant saying what I stated? You cannot as I exposed you as a liar and shall now report you for such 
  • @Dee ;
    Don't explain yourself, tell what s not being told to you.
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    up to you. anyone can see it is of the same work including the admin of this site.  im not going to read 2 books to find one passage,  it is the same author@Dee
  • First, Maxx is not a liar he is elaborating on truth. He states something highly unlikely, maybe worse lethal without an understanding of why it describes a tragedy. Yet, here Maxx in the description minimizes this and any part he may be connected to by stating clearly presume that what is said is fact and we must together determine the most likely chain of events which created this outcome,
    1. We are not just talking the motion a person can make through two types of time line.
    2. Ignore the natural boundary of energy needed to accomplish the task.  
    3. Time travel is in physics is energy, matter, mass forecasting, reoccurrence, relocation. 
  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    she is calling me a liar because I said she has plagerize. read the block quote she posted(without credits) and then she said it is her own words.  then go read a bit if Immanuel kants book prolegomena  this is easily recognized as the same author., yet she claims she wrote it@John_C_87
  • Ah! a book review. Sorry for the interruption then.
    I like video lecture's.....It's much more multi task friendly. most people find how a read a book annoying so I will spare elaboration.
    To be frank, I do not see any manipulation of credit to set a deception. Sharing a course of idea can be proven as plajorizm it does not me it really is. If you believe what is done is wrong spend the $75.00- $140.00 to chat with a lawyer its money well spent.

    This does not negate the focus of the scenario presented. How am I to deduce that both you and someone else sent to a planet are on the planet together unless a year already past, you aged one year, now the both of you are together. The difference motion of what delivers the duration of time you will wait before arrival of person two to join you. In a very basic way we describe a complex idea of cloning people as you are to be duplicated in a foreign location a year before the alternate you is to become atomized...


  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    claiming the words are hers is deception, in which she did. if she would have given credits or even admitted it then that is different.  I haven't read kant in quite awhile but may as well now if only to eventually find the passage she claims is hers.  either that or simply type what she wrote into google and then it enter.  perhaps it will show up@John_C_87 @John_C_87
  • For Dee. 
    Why question General Relativity? There is a similarity in basic math taking place when the speed of light as motion is explain over principle of chord Time. The results we get by multiplying numbers as decimals and dividing numbers as decimals contradicts other basic principles of general math. Just like what takes place with (E = Mc^2 )It is logical to question a similarity of this kind. 

    1. (Chord Time) is an expression only to created a spoken singularity when having this discussion. Chord meaning geometry chord and there are multiple chord for all given circle.
    2. Numbers move during the math process the movements are governed as law. 1 + 1 moves 2, 2 x 7 moves 14, 21 / 3 moves 7, 10 - 1 moves 9. This Boolean must be true.


  • @maxx ;
    So much for the type into google...……..
  • The question is much like a lecture I’m watching on modals semantics.

  • maxxmaxx 205 Pts
    edited January 26
    ill get around to it.   shes not on my top list of priorities.   Ive read enough of that older stuff to recognize it.  it was written by kant.  the exact passage will be hard to find.  however one can easily go online and  type in what kant says about time and space and metaphysics  it was written by him and anyone with a bit of knowledge of reading the similarities of an author can see this.
    @John_C_87
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch