Time is just an illusion/made up force that helps us understand our place in the Universe

My opponent's arguments jump back and forth from one topic to another seemingly at random and are riddled with fallacies and outright untruths, so I will no longer be bothering with the original topic of debate, but will just follow down the path my opponent seems to want to follow. My opponent wants to know why we cannot travel forwards or backwards through time. We do, in fact, travel "forwards," that is, into the future. The fact that there is no currently known way to travel into the past does not make it impossible. My opponent says "If there is no past and no future, only present then that proves that it is non-existent except for its current state." If I stand in a given spot in a hallway, does the hallway behind me and in front of me not exist because I am not standing in them? Of course does not. Just because we are in the present does not mean the past and future do not exist. My opponent says that the mathematical representation of chronological time is "x = x+ (∞+1), x ≠ x+ (∞+1)." I would like to know the source on this equation, because it makes no sense, especially infinity plus 1 - that is an impossible operation. He then says you cannot "divide by time," but he has made no reference to division in the preceding equations. The following statements, that x = infinity and infinity = 0, and that time is "any point on a non-existent line" is so vague that I have nothing to say about it. My opponent then says "Back to the example of me coming back to find you dead for 10,000 years, existence, my currant state would be 0. My current state relative to you would be -10,000 while your state in relative to me would be 10,000." That does not in any way refute my point about how my opponent's argument about the 10,000 years/10 years thing was a fallacy. Next "Existence is 0; anything positive is the future, while anything negative is the past. If the past existed, then 2000 years ago would be shown as: x = x – 2000. If x = x – 2000 then x does not equal 0, therefore the past does not exist." First of all, my opponent has not proven that "x" must always equal 0. This is not any sort of scientific fact that I have ever heard of. To use x in positive or negative to represent past and future is one thing, but to say that it is a physical law that it must ALWAYS be 0 - the present - requires some sort of backing up. Secondly, my opponent never defined what "x" is. Finally, "the past does not exist" is false. Scroll up on this page and you will find evidence of the past - posts we both made before now. If you define "exist" as "being in the present," then, no, the past is not the present - but to say it does not exist in the normal sense of the word is a violation of common sense. If time has to be equal to zero," - this was never proven, "then, it cannot be positive or negative. With this being said, 0 + 0 = 0, therefore, time does not move in a linear fashion, making it non-existent. On a grid time is and only can be the origin." This is meaningless. Why should 0 - the present - not be able to be added to? "There is the same amount of matter on Earth as there was 100,000,000,000 years ago;" - The universe itself is only 12,000,000,000 years old. This is also false, because the Earth gains more matter when a meteor burns up in the atmosphere and scatters particles all over the Earth. I believe my opponent meant to say "there is the same amount of matter in the universe..." Next, "matter cannot be created or destroyed, therefore, in order for us to get from the past to the present non-existent matter would have to be created, which is impossible." Another falsehood. This is a non-sequitur. To move from one moment to the next in time does not require the creation of matter, and I would challenge my opponent to prove otherwise. If my opponent can show that it is necessary to create matter to move from one moment to the next, then I will forfeit this debate and personally contact universities on behalf of my opponent so that he can present this evidence to top physicists. "For water to change from a solid state to a liquid state would be; water is represented by w, w = 0, w – 1 = 0 – 1, therefore w was always in existence, water in its previous state is non-existing because it is equal to – 1." - My opponent violates his own claim that "matter cannot be created or destroyed" with this, because he says that the water in its previous state no longer exists after it has changed states. Just because the water of the past is not present in the current moment does not mean it did not exist, unless my opponent wishes to contend that time is capable of destroying matter, in which case he concedes on his initial claim that time is not a force in the universe, because for time to be so capable of destroying matter, it would certainly have to be a very powerful force. "As we age our existence is describe like this; 0 = 0 ï¿½ 1, therefore we are in a current state of existence, and, like water in its solid state, are non-existing." - My opponent contends we do not exist. The fact that he and I have typed our arguments proves otherwise. "This explains why we cannot go back to "when we were younger", or travel into the future, because both no longer exist." - The fact that there is no natural way to progress backwards in time does not mean there was no past. And we do travel into the future, 10^-43 seconds (1) at a time. What is not currently possible is to accelerate our travel into the future. When people talk about time travel into the future, they mean accelerating the rate of progression through time while avoiding aging (which would be theoretically automatic at speeds close to c). We are already traveling into the future at a very slow rate. "Just as we remember non-existing things, like water in the solid state, and out "past", this is just how we deal with the changing of the state of matter." - I would contend that if something does not exist, it does not exist, and cannot be known. We remember things because they happened once - we call that time the past. This point of contention could easily fall into a semantics argument, however. I await my opponent's response and closing remarks, and advise him to organize his thoughts before posting them. This debate is getting incredibly incoherent. (1) Wikipedia, Planck time - http://en.wikipedia.org...