So what actual evidence do we have that time "exists"?

The intervals of candle

So you're measuring a candle and not measuring time?

you're measuring the change in a candle over time
you look at the candle because look at time, same way you can look at length directly

>So what actual evidence do we have that time "exists"?
Did you press "Post" before or after you typed your message?

can't

so time exists because things change and things change because time exists huh?

no, things change because time exists FULL STOP

and that is a belief of yours im guessing?

yes, I also believe my belief to be an accurate representation of reality

but you still havent manipulated or visualised time, you're just abstracting based on your own beliefs

How?

you're visualizing an abstract representation of time using the length of a candle please explain to me where you have visualised time itself

But it's not abstract, if there was no time the candle wouldn't change length

4D worldline moving through 3D space.

I can wrap my head around that.

Idiot. You presume that to know something exists, you must see it. Yet we do not see sound, magnetism, gravity.

It's like you're trying to convince this poor user into forgetting truth's hold on this world. Like you're trying to discredit his knowledge with a charlatan's gambit.

Time exists because equations involving time and other measurable quantities can be confirmed by experiment in the real, physical world.
Time exists because it's a component of spacetime in relativity, which describes how gravitation works in the actual, real universe.
Time exists because you get fired if you show up late.
Time exists because I had to write this before you could read it.

You can ask yourself, "What is time?" But you can't say it doesn't exist.

>change in a candle over time
>The time part being a numerical representation based on our spin around the sun
>so what is time to the sun
>and that
>...and that

>you look at the candle because look at time, same way you can look at length directly

Really, what does time look like? Is it a force that acts on something? Is there a weak and strong time force?

>no, things change because time exists

No things change because it's acted upon by another change and so on. No different than pressure mediation

If there was no CHANGE the candle wouldn't change in length.

We experience the effects of magnetism, sound and "gravity" and can reproduce them. How do you reproduce time? How do you experience "time" other than the revolutions around the sun and the change in your body's composition? The answer is simply change itself. Also pic related is a magnet under a ferrocell. Gravity does not exist by the way. And no I'm not presuming anything, try me.

You're right, let's rename "time" to "change" and call it a day.

>Time exists because equations involving time and other measurable quantities can be confirmed by experiment in the real, physical world.

So a species contrived language (math) and perception of measurements can prove tiem exists? We can't even see more than half the EM spectrum without machine that turn on and off really fast based on the frequency WE set.

Time exists because it's a component of spacetime in relativity, which describes how gravitation works in the actual, real universe.

This sentence is hilariously phoned in. The theory relativity has so many holes in it that it's no wonder they're starting to see "holes in spacetime" let alone believing gravity is anything other than dielectric acceleration .

>Time exists because you get fired if you show up late.

This DEPENDS on who you work for

>Time exists because I had to write this before you could read it.

You don't have to ask yourself if time exists, if you use simple logic you can deduce that it in fact CANNOT exist. Maybe if you could think FASTER and type FASTER and had a FASTER machine that could send your post FASTER, maybe it would be a huge CHANGE from your previous post.

I used simple logic and deduced that you're insane.
/thread

You're an idiot, the 'poor user' was replying to someone else who asked how to visualize time.
I am telling this user that his method doesn't allow him to actually visualize time, I said nothing whatsoever about the existence of time.

Stop being over emotional

>He's wrong
>does a /thread

>I have no argument or retort to any of the "unconventional" thoughts that you have put forth because I am a "scientist" and that means I only believe what my C average professor taught me.

See the green areas in pic related? That is your stupid fucking gravity and if you actually believe that particles like electrons and photons exist then you're a fucking moron and it's no wonder you believe that an artificial human construct such as "time" exists.

It's not a force
It's not a modality
It does not affect ANYTHING
Everything is inertia and the loss of inertia only

Fucking deal with it. The only way you can describe time to me is through a unit of measurement or metaphysical newage garbage. "oh maaan it would be like so cool if we could like, reverse time. it would reverse motion and.. and, uhhh DIMENSIONS n' shiet".

time doesn't really exist; change does. time is the measurement of change. time is just like another dimension such as length - you can measure it but the things you use to measure it are changeable, all dimensions are relative.

could you say when you die your consciousness is at absolute zero? could something go from existing to being in an absolute zero state?

can you please expand on the concept of gravity not existing? i dont understand

math is a human construct, do you think math doesn't exist either? not trying to argue just curious

also your consciousness went from nothing to existing... can something come from nothing?

or would this not count because your parents created you body, and your parents already existed... the real question is does your body create your consciousness or is your consciousness immaterial

lol

see:
That which you call gravity is just another aspect of magnetism that is overlooked. Many call it the "bloch wall" but it can also be called dielectric inertia. Inertia as in being inert, not moving, an IMPLOSION, the opposite of the toroid as it were.

The earth's magnetic mass is tangled and incoherent, but what makes it coherent is it's spin and the revolutions around the sun. The core of the earth is INERT that is to say there is "no gravity" because the mass around it is even. The surface is not as inert because it has the mass of both sides counter balancing and being effecting by the attraction of the sun. This creates a massive motion difference and causes the crust to spin and "keep the ether" churning as it were, a fast moving surface storing energy from a vortex like implosion of inertia. This would explain plate tectonics in it's entirety. The earth isn't burning shit, it's just creating a differential in pressure from the natural way nature works.

Because of the difference in permeability and permittivity of the incoherent materials in the crust and mantle, this "vortex implosion" becomes scattered and less coherent from the bloch wall being bent and warped, BUT it is coherent in that as a whole it is spinning around the sun. This creates enough of an equilibrium balance of attraction to affect every element that has paramagnetism, diamagnetism, and ferromagnetism (everything). But it isn't perfect as pic related shows.

well time to write up your paper and get that Ph.D

Until the world realizes that Einstein was a fraud and that FTL travel does indeed exist, we will be stuck with transverse wave technology. Particles do not exist, they are merely another form of inertia and the loss of inertia (fucking magnetism and dielectric inertia). The last person to try and tell the world about this shit had all his stuff taken away from him by the FBI and Donald Trumps uncle help bastardize and flounder the technology into something it was never meant to be.

Perhaps it's the same reason they keep calling these spirals "failed missles". FTL travel is freedom and that is why it's suppressed.

wow this actually would explain very much... did you come up with this yourself?

also are you saying that FTL travel does exist because mass doesn't exist? would this mean that matter and energy are the same thing?

i just re-read it and realized that you said the first person to come up with it was fucked by the FBI

"matter" "particles" "corpuscles" whatever you want to call them is nothing but pressure mediation of inertia and the loss of inertia. No I did not come up with it, it was the combined effort of everyone that gave you electricity. Walter Russel explained it the best and his books were suppressed by the US government at some point. However they were probably released because enough of the population now believes in stupid THEORIES like the 4 forces being separate form one another, "light" being a thing that does something, and an obese atom/molecule somehow being responsible for the creation of nothing from something. Light is nothing more than a coherent effect of magnetism and dielectric inertia, a coaxial circuit if you will. The reason "FTL" travel cannot be utilized is because we do not fully understand counterspace aka the implosive inert nature that coincides with all magnetic fields.
A black hole is nothing more than a voidance of huge amounts of dielectric inertia, enough to suck in light and anything else with a magnetic field until it reaches its equilibrium and then...

It bounces back once the voidance is filled with enough magnetic energy to once again propagate a magnetic field of it's own. Often it is very violent and expels the LOSS OF INERTIA as "matter" in a magnetic vortex like manner. The dielectric component will now expel energy in the form of a coherent rotation and this vortex will move all the matter around until it starts to form planets. These will be locked in at their own distance based on their permettivity /permiability. This is why asteroids and ice chunks in the Oort cloud form in the same ares, it's why rings and moons are locked on planets.

And it must be so for such a system to logically exist. Why do you suppose galactic jets expel hydrogen? It is a recycle into the system that never begins or ends, it just changes.

>Einstein was a fraud
General Relativity has been tested and validated to a pretty extensive degree by this point. Not sure what more you want out of it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

So, um... what's you're psychiatric diagnosis and why havn't you been taking your medication? Also, do you ever feel like harming yourself or anyone else?

Things changing is time. The universe has consistent mechanics because the rate of fundamental changing (not some "object" but instead the fundamental forces and probably even deeper than them) is consistent.

it never made sense to me why the 4 forces would be sepereate from each other, you would expect them to be related somehow
>regarding how the universe was created "obese atoms/molecules" etc.
youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM&list=PLuo_6io8kHuUPQT-mttIclTmXDLj6rb3O&index=1

youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM&index=3&list=PLuo_6io8kHuUPQT-mttIclTmXDLj6rb3O

check out these videos if your interested, i actualy don't think this universe was eternal but actually had a set starting poing and was created by god and this whole universe is a simulation going on in his head or something, and when i say "god" im not talking about the way god is depected in any of the major religions, i think that god is so advanced we couldn't begin to comprehend what it is like

i know this sounds very crazy, but trust me i was an athiest until i saw these videos. they're very interesting. also there is sacred geometry, if you've never heard of it i suggest you check that out too.

regarding the Walter Russel books do you have any one that you would recomend me starting with? thanks for explaining all of this to me btw

>So a species contrived language
What do you think every thought and conceptualisation is?

>Nothing is faster than light! Except for when light becomes slow when "not in a vacuum" or goes through glass or an intense magnetic field!
>A true vacuum exists
>A "black hole" somehow surpasses this magical speed of light and manages to "bend it"

So right there, relativity goes out the window since everything it's built on is based on light being a maximum speed when it has been recorded to change speed based on what it goes through.

Let me ask you something. How can something be a particle and a wave? A wave is what something DOES not what something is. So by saying it is something and something that does something seems awfully redundant.

What is the only thing a "particle" is compromised of that we know of?

>Fields

Fields of INERTIA, and THE LOSS OF INERTIA. And if you're going to try to say that it's anything other than movement or change then you're retarded. All CERN is doing is smashing fields together and recording the mapping of what movement does. That's it! It's the equivalent of smashing two hammers together and seeing if they explode or not, then calling every iron chunk something completely different.

this, posit something that has more applicability and robustness (as a model) or fuck off.

first you're saying that gravity is just a hidden part of electromagnetism... now you're saying that particles are made of fields...
doesn't electromagnetism itself say that particles are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons?

A derivative change, duh.

The diagnosis is inspiration and the medication is bismuth and neodymium magnets

"The universal one". Yes it is a bit metaphysical and unconventional for todays scientists, but believe it or not most scientists back in the 20's then believe in God.

Time is an Archon.

magnetism is nothing more than a coherent dielectric inertia and the loss of said inertia. What can you define a particle as exactly? If every particles weight can change depending on what medium it's in (IE a vacuum), then how the fuck are they different from one another in the end? It's all the same shit in a different quality

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

>The N/S poles form instantly
>Take an x length magnet
>break it.

Holy shit you just broke the speed of light, fuckin' pressure mediation just kicked in yo'.

ok... then how would you explain how different elements have different properties if they're all the same in essence?

>same shit different quality
isn't a quality what gives each thing its distinct 'thing-ness' to it?
just playing the devil's advocate cuz i'm curious

>it's built on is based on light being a maximum speed
Speed of light in a vacuum, which you already alluded to in your first complaint so you're being pretty dishonest by deliberately leaving that detail out in this complaint.
And that aside you sound like a literal schizophrenic. Challenging very well established and tested theories is one thing, but calling Einstein a "fraud" and acting like GR is obviously broken because of your own inane strawman that it was somehow arguing the speed of light in a vacuum referred to the speed of light under any conditions with or without medium is just retarded. Given the unparalleled wealth of observational evidence of and practical applications for GR you need to do a much better job building up an extraordinary case for why some alternative model would be superior.

No no no what I said (sarcastically mind you) is:

>A true vacuum exists

So how can the speed of light in a vacuum be constant if the fucking vacuum doesn't exist in the first place? There isn't a true vacuum anywhere! It can't be created, it is impossible from the standpoint of thermodynamics. What I'm trying to tell you is that QM and relativity are already wrong based on the two assumptions that:

a: Light's speed in a vacuum is constant (it is not)
b: A true vacuum existing in the first place.

A vacuum is nothing other than a large expansive voidance of magnetism so the placeholder to maintain these field is the Bloch wall. This distorts EM radiation and causes perturbations which you call light. If you think light is anything other than a difference in the EM spectrum and can function without dielectric inertia and magnetism then you know absolutely nothing about the nature of it.

Einstein gave you absolutely nothing other than a flawed postulate who's intellectual value stolen from Poincare, Maxwell , Oliver Heaviside and a few others. He even had his famous equation E=MC^2 corrected by electrical engineers that actually worked on inventions and gave the world the electrical grid. (Pic related, he was only here to visit and did not actually work with any of these geniuses).

See the deformed little man beside Einstein? That is Charles Steinmetz and you can thank him for begrudgingly phoning in the math that would make "E-MC^2" mathematically acceptable for the physicists at the time.

I don't have a to build a case against one that's already riddled with holes and flaws.

You just answered your own question, but yes. All based on how the inertia and loss of inertia flows. Some "decay" slower, some faster. Some of their structures are aligned and coherent, some are not. All a magnet is is coherent Iron. You haven't changed anything about the structure of the iron other than you aligned the "atoms" strait and true like a laser.

Oh and here's another good one for you:

Why does light slow down in glass, but then speed back up when it leaves? Could it be that the the glass is a DIELECTRIC CAPACITOR of sorts?

Why do they have to use halbach arrays in a particle accelerator?

>So how can the speed of light in a vacuum be constant if the fucking vacuum doesn't exist in the first place?
>HURR HOW CAN CALCULUS WORK IF INFINITESIMALS DON'T EXIST?
Maybe it's possible to figure out how things work as they tend towards certain perfectly absolute conditions and the fact these perfectly absolute conditions don't exist in real life is a retarded complaint?
>I don't have a to build a case against one that's already riddled with holes and flaws.
GR is probably the most extensively tested and observationally affirmed theory there is you schizophrenic pseud. You need to build a much more substantial case against it than "perfect voids don't technically exist and other preexisting ideas influenced it" if you want to even begin having the privilege of trying to challenge some of its specific details and having people not interpret your ranting as mental illness.
Though I'm pretty sure you're not in a position to publish an acaremic paper in the first place given how you're talking down to one of the most reputable and application rich theories there is as though it's somehow obviously trash. Any theory could have problems that haven't been recognized until now, but you're failing to understand that when a theory is extremely well tested and has yielded a wealth of practical applications then there is a very large burden on any would be detractor's part to explain why we should do the opposite of what all the evidence points to and throw out what's been working exceptionally well, and you should do so while demonstrating an appropriate degree of respect and recognition of the theory's exceptional good standing.
I'm honestly amazed you have so little self-awareness that you don't understand why shitting all over GR with inane autistic nitpicks about literally perfect voids and pretending it's common knowledge the guy whose name is synonymous with "genius" was secretly an idiot makes you come across like a poorly educated crazy person.

...

>GR is probably the most extensively tested and observationally affirmed theory there is you schizophrenic pseud.

Magnetism itself is instantaneous action at a distance, (the le spoooooky action at a distance) I'm sorry if that upsets you so much. QM likes to balance out equations with things called "virtual particles" which in themselves do not exist. They are not the inputs or outputs of any experiment. It's like saying that unicorns exist and come from nowhere. That to me sounds a massive illogical psychosis.

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity CANNOT explain what a field is let alone what a particle is. They have absolutely no empirical data or evidence to denote what a field is, an electron microscope can't even work unless the subject is coated with a CONDUCTIVE (usually gold) coating. Everything is fields and fields have:

No
Particles

>And no I'm not presuming anything, try me.

How do you explain quantum computers

>Gravity does not exist by the way.

Theoria Aphophasis pls go away

>QM likes to balance out equations with things called "virtual particles" which in themselves do not exist.
>fields have no particles

build a simple cloud chamber with some dry ice, take it to the top of a mountain, and you'll get some pair production/annihilation readings you retarded Theoriafag

Like anything else articulated, it's another concept humans created, just like laws or fashion

Stupid and redundant question to be quite honest

>take it somewhere where it will work better

Oh pressure mediation, gotcha. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

I don't even know how they explain quantum computers.
>We have this spinning "particles" and sometimes they flip a coin and get the right answer. Also they're much better for incredibly complex problems, but for everything else they're useless.

Also what does a quantum computer run off of ? Quantum glue? Strings? Oh right, magnetism and electricity.
I've built and reproduced some of his experiments, the man is right and certainly explains a magnet better than anyone else has. But don't let my words guide you, Go buy some bismuth while it's cheap and play around with some magnets.

So when and where can I read your peer-reviewed paper in a science journal? Or even just on arXiv.org? Talk is cheap.

He can't get published because scientists are jealous of how clever he is and have conspired to suppress his work while promoting the obviously flawed theories of idiot fraud Einstein to keep the public from discovering the Truth about the faster than light travel ready starship he has in his parents' garage.

>Magnetism
>instantaneous
Are you a time traveler from the XIXth century?

Two ring magnets with like poles facing each other and compressed(or several series of compressed magnets in a series, a flat coil connected to power in between said magnets, centered around a bismuth/dielectric core and a copper reflector on top. The more acceleration you apply to the disk, the more the effects can be seen/felt. I am not claiming anything, but none the less you are welcome.

And I would not apply too much power if I were you, a watch battery is all you need.

Once again, Time does not exist.

How do you define periodicity without invoking time?

What is inertia?

a property of matter
BILL BILL BILL BILL

What is matter?

you are so fucking stupid it's hilarious. You speak like some twelve year old retard who just "came into enlightenment" about something shitty but doesn't actually have a clue about what is really going on. You understand so very little of the actual intricacies of what you speak of, but yet act like you are the all knowing high and mighty god of the subject and everyone else is completely wrong. You are the textbook definition of brainlet, and will forever remain as such, so long as you keep that attitude you have so graciously shared with us.

Time dilation actually existing. If time didnt exist then nothing would ever change the actual speed of entropy in the universe not even light speed.

>ur dumb, u just don know how things work user. You act so high and mighty and that's bad, let me show you how little you are by acting high and mighty.

And the argument is where now?
Why don't you try to prove the existence of one fucking particle for starters.
I simply put down a list of material (relatively cheap mind you). I don't care if you believe me or not, that is the best part about being "enlightened".

>take it somewhere where it will work better

I said mountain because it's easy access to stellar particles, you could put it next to a reactor for all I care

>pressure mediation

no, looool no

>Why don't you try to prove the existence of one fucking particle for starters.

you/Theoria have a fundamental misunderstanding of QFT

damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/qft.pdf

also Theoria has never full explained an understanding of magnetism other than "INERTIA IS A FUNDAMENTAL FORCE LMAO", that's not a satisfactory explaination of the phenomena

>The more acceleration you apply to the disk, the more the effects can be seen/felt.

what the hell are you talking about

>So a species contrived language (math) and perception of measurements can prove tiem exists? We can't even see more than half the EM spectrum without machine that turn on and off really fast based on the frequency WE set.
uh, fucking EXACTLY?
if you can't accept time exists then you can't accept anything beyond human senses, which is completely asinine, because you'd have to reject electricity, magnetism, nuclear radiation, radio waves, even the center of the Earth
>he theory relativity has so many holes in it that it's no wonder they're starting to see "holes in spacetime"
no one's seeing holes in spacetime you idiot
why am I replying to this?
this is taking AGES

was referring to a "black hole" which QM believes is a "hole in spacetime" or some other nonsensical shit.

>So a species contrived language (math) and perception of measurements can prove tiem exists? We can't even see more than half the EM spectrum without machine that turn on and off really fast based on the frequency WE set.
>uh, fucking EXACTLY?

Uh, so that is what we call a "technological limitation". Imagine the shit we'll come to realize once we start making perfectly coherent materials.

>you can't accept time exists then you can't accept anything beyond human senses

I'm gonna stop you right there and say that is exactly the case. All you have to go by is your human senses so to say that time is force you can feel is retarded. I do not feel any different than I did 5 minutes ago other than the fact that your statement making me slightly confused. Time had absolutely no role in any of it.

>which is completely asinine, because you'd have to reject electricity, magnetism, nuclear radiation, radio waves, even the center of the Earth

All of which is driven by one thing and one thing only and it sure as fuck isn't time.

>take it somewhere where it will work better

>I said mountain because it's easy access to stellar particles, you could put it next to a reactor for all I care

My god and you don't even see how you're destroying your argument

damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/qft.pdf

Wow! even the introduction of this books states that everything is fields and not particles. What are you doing mate?

>What are you doing mate?

you misunderstand what physicists mean by particles when they use that word

you also haven't clarified your simple cheap demonstration experiment? flat coils?
how thick? acceleration? give us some /exact specs/ and how to build this thing.

what is ONE NEW THING ken wheeler has built that proves your theories

>All you have to go by is your human senses so to say that time is force you can feel is retarded.
You seem to be the only person in this thread claiming time is a force.

none, as bad as it sounds the nihilist in your sixth grade class was right time is a social construct. The universe will always go forward without us, time as we know it is probably complete bullshit to the universe.

> also I'm just in high school but I am pretty sure that perpetual motion existing defies the first law of thermodynamics.

some other nonsensical shit refers to literally everything else underneath the umbrella of QM

decay of isotopes. it's the closest we can get to time and the closest we can get to random numbers

And yet people buy into it. Lets look at the distinct difference between:

Richard Feynman describing how a magnet works:

youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

Versus Ken Wheeler:

youtu.be/KooPsEE7E-Q?t=1m5s

Notice how Feynman avoids the question and drones on about some lady slipping on the ice and other distractions on how to "understand things". Then he gives some bullshit answer saying that "it depends", but eventually he admits that electricity and magnetism is basically the same thing but he explain why because he genuinely doesn't know.

So if it's not a force and doesn't affect anything then it doesn't exist? Good to hear we're on the same page.

>So if it's not a force and doesn't affect anything then it doesn't exist?
Try actually understanding the subject you're arguing against.

Although time """ isnt measurable/real""" it is just as abstract as length.

The only reason we can measure wavelength is because we already have an arbatrary notion of length. The only reason we can measure time is because we have an arbatrary measure of time.

>Notice how Feynman avoids the question
He was very clear as to why he avoided the question, the reason being you need to actually be in formal studies to have the background required to interpret anything he says about it correctly.
That's what pseuds like you don't get. You can't just self-teach topics like this, you will inevitably end up fundamentally misunderstanding everything about them because they aren't intuitive in a normal sense and depend heavily on mathematical nuances and context which you simply do not have.
The way you so casually and quickly shit all over one of the best, most reliable theories we have and inexplicably talk down to *Einstein* shows you do not have anywhere near the background or maturity required to take these topics seriously and have an opinion about them. Even if it were true that something were flawed in Einstein's theories, a non-pseud would actually recognize it's still been a blatant success by any metric and would explain how the flaw/s being addressed could have come up in spite of this blatant success.
You show a complete lack of awareness over this expectation and think it's reasonable to just skip straight to calling Einstein a fraud and characterizing relativity as transparently broken garbage. That's similar behavior to if you just started posting on /mu/ about how the Beatles were shit songwriters or on Veeky Forums about how James Joyce was an idiot. You're allowed to challenge reputable historical figures and their works, but if you don't address how everyone could have been collectively misled in such a major way then you rightfully end up looking like you just fell for some crank's meme pseudo-theory.

How can nothing affect something? That makes no sense. Try and describe time as something other than a recording, it's impossible.

>How can nothing affect something? That makes no sense.
It makes no sense because you're asserting a bunch of nonsense.

>Try and describe time as something other than a recording, it's impossible.
Time isn't a physical object with independent existence, like a chair or something. It's a measurable property of events.

As a really basic example: If I clap my hands a bunch of times, to uniquely identify each clap it's not enough for me to provide a latitude, longitude and elevation for each clap. I would also need to provide a time.

>Time isn't a physical object with independent existence, like a chair or something. It's a measurable property of events.

>As a really basic example: If I clap my hands a bunch of times, it's not enough for me to provide a latitude, longitude and elevation for each clap. I would also need to provide a time.

>Try and describe time as something other than a recording, it's impossible.

Look are we done here? I don't see how you're proving my point wrong. Providing a time has nothing to do with any of the events that transcribed in you clapping your hands. You simply recorded them.

>Providing a time has nothing to do with any of the events that transcribed in you clapping your hands.
The time that a clapped my hands is clearly an important property, if it's nessisary to distinguish between different claps.

>You simply recorded them.
What? I didn't mention recording at all.

>The time that a clapped my hands is clearly an important property, if it's nessisary to distinguish between different claps.

no what distinguishes the claps is the air, the fat in you hands and rate you clap. Time DOES NOT control these factors.

>So what actual evidence do we have that time "exists"?
Ask me again tomorrow.

sounds like you just mind fucked yourself. crap sound is a wave
wonder if its like a theta wave that is the start of a rem sleep cycle. holy shit now you passed the stupidity on to me... im the next hilary!

If time isn't real, velocity, acceleration, jerk, snap, crackle, and pop isn't real either. They all use units of time.

>no what distinguishes the claps is the air, the fat in you hands and rate you clap.
None of that necessarily distinguishes two claps.

>Time DOES NOT control these factors.
I didn't say it did.

Space and time are connected right? So without space, time wouldn't exist. Time is a measure of change in space.
For example, before I ate this apple, it would have to be grown on a tree. Before I cut my hair, it grew out first.
The units we use to measure time is arbitrary but necessary. I can make a new unit right now. But in order to do so I would have to make in relation to space. For example, light travels from point A to point B, say, 1 million times. Every time light does this, a new unit of time called X passes. There are now 100 Xs in Y. and 100 Ys in Z. It takes 11 Zs to get to work in the morning. See what we've done?

Did I miss anything? Correct me if I'm wrong. But this way it makes sense to me.

>rate
>Time DOES NOT control these factors.
Please define the word "rate" without making any reference to time.