[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Time as a concept
- To: Patrick G Konshak
- Subject: Re: Time as a concept
- From: Robert L. Vaessen
- Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 08:28:29 -0700
- Cc: Robert Garrity ,
- In-reply-to: <20020310.221711.-3894699.1.>
On Sunday, March 10, 2002, at 11:17 , Patrick G Konshak wrote:
Why would you use time to predict where something will
intersect? Time does not include any component of distance. You
are using time to describe not predict. Taking time out of the
formula does not prevent the trains from colliding. By including
time in the equation you are able to describe the consequences
of the event.
This is a good point. I should state my self as "I can use time to
You cannot prove time by using time in the proof of time.
predict better then random chance where (not when) two trains will
intersect." I'm using 'where' to proof 'time', instead of using 'time'
to proof 'time'. The Earth being the center of the Universe is a
'concept'. But when they used it to predict where the planets
would be, they could not do it. So that concept was changed to
You describe the occurrence of the event using time. Why?
Because the terms associated with time are commonly agreed to by
you and other observers.
Time is not a necessary component to the equation. It is added
so that you can describe the event in terms relative to yourself
and another observer.
Distance (where) does not prove time. You cannot measure time
with a yardstick. How many inches in a day?
You can't use time to prove anything. You can only use it to
help describe events. It's like using words. Words (as a
concept) are not physical objects. Manipulation of words does
not cause affect. I can write that 'President George W. Bush was
shot and killed by an assassins bullet at 1220pm on the 15th of
March 2002'. That doesn't make his death real (I certainly don't
wish him dead by the way). When scientists finally figure that
out, they'll change their concept of time to one that does work.
The concept of time doesn't prove things. Application of
physical laws, and the measurement of their results equal proof.
Formulae are written afterwards in order to describe the events.
Time itself has no physical component which can influence or be
measured. (So I say)
How do you measure time? If time were real, why couldn't I store
it, make more of it, slow it down, speed it up, see it, smell
it, taste it, hear it, feel it, etc...
Perhaps you have another formula/example where time is used to
prove something, or time is proven? Perhaps I misunderstand how
Time is proven with Where? I just don't see how you can prove
that time exists with a yardstick? The trains will intersect
regardless of whether time is included in the formula or not.
When they intersect is irrelevant to the event. Your use of time
only serves to describe the event.
To draw a conclusion. What I'm doing here is trying to show
I reject time. I can't see it, touch it, smell it, taste it or
hear it. As a matter of fact, I can't even see it's effects on
anything. Aging is not a result of time. It's the result of
cellular break down, brought about by various internal and
of 'time' as far as I can understand it, which is as close to being
nothing as you can get. Maybe someone with a big mind can proof that
time exist as a 4th dimension of matter/energy, And that you can time
travel. Mine mind is not that advance to conceive this.