Physics is not able to determine whether or not A or B theory is true.

Pro claims that this debate is philosophical and not scientific. However, Physics is a science, so this cannot be correct. We must approach the matter from a scientific perspective. http://en.wikipedia.org... Forgive me for not defining "universal present". I assumed that my opponent was familiar with Relativity, seeing as they are debating Physics. A "universal present" or "absolute time" means that if we synchronize two clocks and take them to different parts of the universe, they will always agree with one another (assuming the clocks are working properly). Special Relativity is all about overthrowing the assumption that this is correct. http://en.wikipedia.org... Now imagine the following scenario: Suppose Alice and Bob are on planets 10 light years away. At time zero, Alice lets off some fireworks and hops in her spacecraft, which departs towards Bob's planet at the speed of light. Being 10 light years apart, the journey takes 10 years. After 7 years, Bob falls and breaks his leg. He then observes the light from Alice's fireworks, and can construct the following timeline: Year 0 - Alice lets off fireworks and boards her spacecraft. Year 7 - Bob breaks his leg. Year 10 - Alice arrives in her spacecraft. Alice, however, has been travelling at the speed of light, so Special Relativity predicts that the amount of time that passed for her should be 0. Alice constructs the following timeline: Year -3: Bob breaks his leg. Year 0: Alice lets off fireworks and boards her spacecraft. Year 0: Alice arrives in her spacecraft. Note that Alice's perspective is the same perspective that all photons have: their lifespans take 0 time, their departure and arrival are simultaneous, and Bob broke his leg 3 years before they departed. For photons, this situation is not hypothetical. Also, the timeline is not a failure of measurement on Alice's part; that is literally what her timeline would look like if reconstructed properly. If Alice was to return home faster than the speed of light, then Bob would observe: Year 0: Alice departs. Year 0: Alice returns. Year 7: Bob breaks his leg. Year 10: Alice arrives. And Alice would observe: Year -3: Bob breaks his leg. Year 0: Alice departs. Year 0: Alice arrives. Year 0+: Alice returns. As you will observe, this makes both the A- and B-theories of time unworkable. If A-theory is correct, then how could Alice return from visiting Bob before she arrived? The past she was travelling into should not have existed. If B-theory is correct, then how can Alice and Bob disagree on the order of events? The past and future should be all laid out. The problem is that A- and B-theory are philosophical ideas, and not scientific theories. Science was once part of Philosophy, but it has since moved on. http://en.wikipedia.org... https://web.archive.org... I'd also like to thank my opponent for pointing out that A- and B-theory can, in fact, be disproved (that was a trap and you fell into it). It still doesn't make them real theories (they're not accurate, they don't have supporting evidence, they can't be adapted and they don't conform to Occam's Razor), but it does prove my case. Pro's 3rd paragraph onward is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. I encourage you all to ignore it.