Can't look back in time

RustyJames wrote:



at the edge of things resolutions become confusing


holog

BURT wrote:


It is what it wants to be without your interpretation
of what it is.

In
news:[Only registered users see links. ],
BURT <[Only registered users see links. ]> mused:

That's hardly the basis for such a hypothesis

AllYou! wrote:
Now try to cross a busy street without using reality that is called
time. You can't do it.

/BAH

In
news:[Only registered users see links. ],
BURT <[Only registered users see links. ]> mused:

Who ever claimed that we were at the center of anything?

In news:[Only registered users see links. ],
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> mused:

I just explained how to do it. Compare the motions of the vehicles
in the street to the motion that we believe that we'll be able to
achieve in crossing it, and we make the determination as to how to
cross the street without getting hit.

If you think that can't be done that way, then please explain. I
agree that there is such a thing as time, but I assert that it's
only the intellectual concept of comparing the progression of one
process to the progression of a given process which was selected as
a standard for such a comparison. At first, we used the rotation of
the Earth on its axis as the standard (i.e., the rise and fall of
the sun in the sky). Then it included the orbit of the Earth around
the Sun (i.e., the change in seasons). And now, it's the events
generated by an atomic clock.

Nonetheless, it's still nothing more than the comparison of the
progression of two processes.

In
news:[Only registered users see links. ],
BURT <[Only registered users see links. ]> mused:

It can be that we can't see far enough.

On Oct 8, 3:36*pm, RustyJames <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

if you have a race car on a closed circular loop and it traveling in
circles seams like you could look backwards and forwards and still see
the car pass, so why cant we observe the return of the car no matter
wich way we look, because the circular loop is infinitly exanding so
the car never compleats one lap even though it's path is in a closed
loop manifold.

AllYou! wrote:

Those comparisons are comparing rates which is based on time.

<snip>

/BAH

In news:[Only registered users see links. ],
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> mused:

That's circular logic. Go back to the bginning. The only way we
had to communicating the relative motion of anything was to pick
some motion that appeared uniform, and which could be known to
virtually everyone with whom we made contact, and so we used that
motion as the basis for describing other motions. We used both
intervals and multiples of that motion, called them by some name or
other, and then used those as the basis to describe things like the
progession of our motion or that of other things we observed.

You're making the classic mistake of using how we've come to use
these intellectual concepts (e.g., miles per hour), and the basis to
argue that distances and time came first, and that motion is the
result. In actuallity, long before there were humans, there were
distances, and there were motions. Time is just the tool we
invented by which we describe motion.