Time is but a measurement

"I am no physicist either, so I believe we approach this from different angles, but with comparable degrees of a layman's understanding. Indeed, I would not be surprised is there were someone in the audience bemused by both of our attempts to make since [sic] of this matter." I assure you, you are more knowledgeable in physics than I... I took high school physics, and I did't retain much... "Is a minute a measurement of time or a description of time? A second is equal to a given number of radioactive cycles of cesium-133." It is how we know it, but if cesium-133 slowed down somehow (this is completely hypothetical; I know that that's impossible), a second would still be one-Mississippi. Just as if you stretch a rubber band. It gets longer. It becomes more inches, even though it is the same thing. If you could slow down time, it would seem longer, and it would be more seconds, even though cesium-133 cycled just the same amount of time. And I think it is a lost cause to try to argue that a minute is not a measurement. You do make a valid point, but frankly, you could make just the same argument for an inch, or a pound. "Relativity predicts and tests confirm that while I see the second light travel away from me at the speed of light and reach you before I do, you see me and the light I shine towards you approach at the same speed and arrive at the same time." Once again, I know very little about relativity, and I would like to see what tests confirm that, and how they did it, because it seems like it would be very hard to do that in a lab. "However, different amounts of ‘time' (no matter how measured) must pass for me, you, and the beam of light in order to explain the results." I might not be great at physics, but I am good at math. Or at least good enough. Wikipedia states that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. If the light in your test goes 500,000,000 meters, you can just do simple division to find that both you and the light took 1.6678204759907602478778835723746 seconds. http://en.wikipedia.org... I hope that one works... "Similarly, changes in matter took place ‘before' we began to seek to explain and understand it." I still stand my argument that you are supporting my point by that quote. Time was there before we named it. "If you were to return to a state devoid of matter, then you could not even count- for you could not be." That was purely hypothetical. I know it could never happen. Time travel is also impossible. I think the central point of this argument comes down to whether changes in matter dictate time, or whether time dictates changes in matter. Because there are so many things that change the way that they do, it only makes sense that time has always been there to tell it when to, so to speak, just as distance and weight have always been there. Inches have not always been there. Seconds have not always been there. Time has. I would like to thank my opponent for a most excellent debate. This has definitely been one of the more intellectual debates I've had on here. But, I don't think that any of the big words or fancy physics are really necessary for me to prove my point. Then again, it did make for a very interesting debate! I'm looking forward to your conclusion, and I'm looking forward to see how the voting turns out!