[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*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.>

Pat - 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 toYou 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 and stars

would be, they could not do it. So that concept was changed to one that

did work.

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.

- Robert

To draw a conclusion. What I'm doing here is trying to show the existingI 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 external forces.

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.

- Robert

**References**:

- Prev by Date:
**Terminator with a limp** - Next by Date:
**Super, and super computers et. al.** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Time as a concept** - Next by thread:
**Chaos** - Index(es):