Re: Time as a concept

[Robert L. Vaessen]

Pat -

On Sunday, March 10, 2002, at 11:17 , Patrick G Konshak wrote:

> > You cannot prove time by using time in the proof of time.
> This is a good point. I should state my self as "I can use time to
> 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.
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.

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 existing
> 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.
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 
external forces.

- Robert