I know everything about everything. - Debate me about anything.
 

And go...

Why did 50 Cent's stupid ass decide to battle Wu Tang?

Debate on 50's side. Dare ya.

50 decided to DO BATTLE with Wu because he is a dumbass man child looking for publicity. Thats about the best way to sum it up that I can think of.

does time have a linear existence if we aren't here to measure it?

Debate and win all of WendyCal's arguments to Sleepy Jack... And GO!

If life was a snail and it was surrounded by salt who do you believe would play santa in the year 2042 ?

Assuming time is linear, yes. It isn't like if we stopped existing everything else would stop existing with it, just our perception of it. However as long as events happen, even without anything to witness or measure them, there is necessarily a time at which it happened. Human activity and perception do not determine the existence of nor the order in which events happen. With or without us time would remain the same.

Thats the easy part. The hard part would be doing it without him banning me.

John Edlund.

What is an event? For an even to be an event, does it not need to be observed? That seems to be implicit in the definition. If everything we know is the result of observation, how can we possibly know what is beyond the realm of observation? Also, you say that human activity cannot determine the order in which events occur. That's just not true, Einstein proved that there was no such thing as synchronicity and that seeing two events as simultaneous depends on your reference frame/speed.

Perhaps event is the wrong word. However if an apple falls out of a tree and no sentient thing is there to witness it, it still occurred. Which was my point, something doesn't need to be witnessed for it to happen.

Oh so deep man. Welcome to science.

Relativity accounts for observation and basic senses, however I'm inclined to disagree with it accounting for "real" time. If you moved fast enough around something you could technically see yourself in two places, but you wouldn't actually say you're in two places. I do suppose there is a sort of perceptive relative time though.

Why doesn't something need to be witnessed to happen? How can you have an object without a subject? Now you're trying to distinguish between relativity and "real" time, but how can you have any sort of objective time... consider if the universe were a movie and you were God watching it. You could play it in fast forward or slow it down, and it would be the exact same, none of the characters in the movie would be able to tell. It only makes sense to talk about the "speed of change" if your perception relies on that very change. Time is a concept which we have invented and can barely define, it dies with us.