Time is but a measurement

Con:: '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' 'One-Mississippi' is not equal to a second. Even if the rate of decay for the given sample of Cesium-137 (or equivalent) were to change, we would not know it. By definition, a second would remain 'the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom.' (Quoted exactly, as I doubt I could paraphrase it accurately). If we were to observe that the given periods were not equal X (where X is an equivalent description or unit), we would not be able to discern whether the radiation of the sample of Cesium or X had changed pace. Indeed, to say that either one had 'changed' would be equivalent, as they both would change relative to one another 'One-Mississippi' is merely a useful 'rule of thumb' we use to round time, such s in children's games. The error you make is treating a subjective rule of thumb (we do not speak at the same rates) with a distinct measurement or unit. Con:: '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.' http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de... http://arxiv.org... http://math.ucr.edu... http://www.google.com... If you possess the education necessary to understand the science and equations involved, that makes one of us. I'll leave you with these links and no explanation of the tests, simply because I do not possess the knowledge necessary to explain them. Suffice to say that GPS and satellite communication use relativity to function. The clocks on satellites run more slowly (time 'passes' at a slower rate, relative to the surface of Earth at the speeds satellites travel). It is only our understanding of relativity that allows us to keep the necessary timepieces 'in sync' on earth and in our satellites. Again, you will have to look elsewhere for a more in-depth explanation; I know the fundamentals on a theoretical level and have yet to learn the mathematics involved. Someone viewing this discussion may have more information regarding the details. If time is thought of as a dimension, how can the 'distance' or amount to which an object 'travels through' that dimension be subjective? Con:: 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. Only from your perspective. From my perspective, the beam of light travels away from me at the speed of light, as I approach you at the speed of light. Think of it this way: If I drive towards you at 10 miles per hour and then throw a ball at you, from the car, at 20 MPH relative to me, how fast doe the ball approach you, relative to you? 30MPH, of course. However, while I move at 'c' (the speed of light in a vacuum) and the light moves away from me at 'c' relative to me... the bream does not approach you, from your perspective at 2*c- it approaches you AT 'c'! I see the beam of light reach you before I do, while you see me AND the beam of light arrive >at the same time<. Now, since the distance the beam travels is the same from both of our perspectives, yet the speed is different (and time of arrival) this means that time is relative. (Being good at math, you surely understand the speed/time/distance relationship, yes?) Again, how can a thing pass through a given dimension to different degrees depending on perspective? While there may be dimension through which we travel, 'time' as we understand it is not the dimension, but a subjective measurement of either change in the physical state of universe or (it can also be thought of) of the as-yet unnamed 'dimension' it could be imagined to travel through. (Of course, said 'dimension' still leaves us w/ the same problem- how it is that a thing can travel through it at different rates, subjective to the observer- so we merely push the problem back and do not resolve it. While it shows the concept of 'time' as we know it to be a measurement of change, and not a dimension, we are still left with a new dimension, in theory, that we are yet unable to explain or understand at this time) Con:: 'Time was there before we named it.' There were differences between orange and blue before we named them, as well. Similarly, there were decay and growth. Still, these terms are merely descriptions of differences and changes in the state of the physical universe, respectively. Thus, it is seen that 'time' and 'growth' are the same- measurements of change. Con:: I think the central point of this argument comes down to whether changes in matter dictate time, or whether time dictates changes in matter Neither dictates the other. One ('time') simply measures changes in the other to provide a reference for comparison. Con:: 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. 'Time' does not dictate change any more than 'width' dictates the state of matter or the realms or dimensions into which it extends. Both merely describe the material universe. 'Width' is merely a description of a dimension- it does not determine itself. Again, the difference is that 'width', 'height', and 'depth' are all objective, as we understand dimensions to be. 'Time' is subjective. Only descriptions and measurements can be subjective, for a true dimension- and the extent to or manner in which mater travels through it- must be objective by nature. Con:: But, I don't think that any of the big words or fancy physics are really necessary for me to prove my point. Unfortunately, the nature of the subject makes words, sciences, and mathematics to discuss in any meaningful way. Without such things, one cannot address the question you have raised. Even to examine the question on a philosophical level, one must have at least some understanding of what science has revealed regarding our understanding and concept of 'time'. On cannot discuss 'time' without referring to relativity any more than one can address art without reference to shape or the physical dimensions.