The point, going over your head, is you aren't smart enough or knowledgeable enough to argue this stuff intelligently.

A nobody teacher trying to take on einstein?. Good luck

hypothesis---time exists and is linear, continuous

Time is the continuing sequence of events occurring in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future,[1][2][3][4][5] and a measure of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them. [6][2][7] Diverse fields such as business, industry, sports, the sciences, music, dance, and the live theater incorporate time in their respective measuring systems.[8][9][10] Moreover, time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields of study without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.[6][2][7][11][12][13] Furthermore, it may be that there is a subjective component to time, but whether or not time itself is "felt", as a sensation or an experience, has never been settled.[7][14][6][2][15] Simple definitions of time include "time is what clocks measure"[6][16] and "time is what keeps everything from happening at once".[17][18][19][20]

Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in the International System of Units. Time is used to define other quantities — such as velocity — so defining time in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition.[21] An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured. Investigations of a single continuum called spacetime bring questions about space into questions about time, questions that have their roots in the works of early students of natural philosophy.

Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[22][23] Time travel, in this view, becomes a possibility as other "times" persist like frames of a film strip, spread out across the time line. The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[16] and Immanuel Kant,[24][25] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

Temporal measurement has occupied scientists and technologists, and was a prime motivation in navigation and astronomy. Periodic events and periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples include the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, the swing of a pendulum, and the beat of a heart. Currently, the international unit of time, the second, is defined in terms of radiation emitted by caesium atoms (see below). Time is also of significant social importance, having economic value ("time is money") as well as personal value, due to an awareness of the limited time in each day and in human life spans.

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves." ;)

Whatever you are, therefore, you are not the stuff of which you are made.”

Rather I can give purpose to my life. From that purpose I can determine what is real.

Everything is made of stuff.

Touch is the only real sense. Every other sense is merely a different neural program for interpreting touch.

So whatever is real must be physical first and vice versa.

What physical component of sentient beings is it that is never replaced?

The glitch is that I am here, behind my eyes, aware, conscious. Not that I'm observing from the outside another person who says this, and who interacts with me with apparent intellect and sentience...but that I myself am here inside this head of mine, looking out. If we reconcile this thought, this experience, that would answer a lot of questions.