Summations Only

Hi No, OKThe item existed at the coordinates I gave you in 1978.What existed at those coordinates in 1978?I would like for you to figure it out without using the spatial coordinates. Why do they have to reach the coordinates simultaneously?In Message 387 I said:

quote:

---

Now explain this to me.

​

Using your coordinates 0,0,0 an object is headed to that coordinate from the North and another object is headed to that coordinate from the South, will they collide?

​

Do they have to reach that coordinate simultaneously in order to collide?

---

Please answer the question as written and explain your reasoning. Knowing the time of our Bible study would not tell you what time I reached the services.God Bless,

Hi Mod, Nobody, we just want fruit. And I am pointing out that length does not have length, width does not have width, height does not have height, objects have length, width, and height. I went on in Message 380 to say:

quote:

---

Time existing as a dimension in the universe is no more true/false than your being an idiot for what you believe is true/false.

---

At some point in it's existence it was a seed.It still exists just in a different form. I think it is called gravity. If it's a fact you should not have a problem explaining how it is accomplished. Then I can't travel through time.I can travel through existence and the duration it takes to go from A to B can be measured by a stop watch, or an hour glass.I can then travel through existence and the duration it takes to go from B to A can be measured by a stop watch, or an hour glass.I can go length in either direction.If I can travel through time why can't I go both ways in time?I think that is because time is not a dimension but a measurment of duration in existence. I acquired a lot of things.But I did not experience traveling through time.I traveled from point A to point B in existence and the duration it took for all those events to take place as measured by a clock that it has been determined that clock counts 60 second in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day which is determined by the rotation of the earth relative to the sun. Ok, I will use infinite eternal to mean without beginning or end.God Bless,

Whatever point you are trying to make is undermined by the answer to this question:Using the coordinates 0,0,0 an object is passing through that coordinate from the North and another object is passing through that coordinate from the South, will they collide?

This is silly ICANT. Did I say that spatial coordinates were not important or did I instead rebut your position that temporal coordinates were of lesser importance. They don't. But they must occupy the same coordinates simultaneously. If train A is moving North along tracks on Tuesday while train B is moving South along the same tracks on Friday, there won't be a collision.It does no good to try to invent situations where the time coordinate is of minimal use. If your position is that time is unimportant or of lesser importance, then that must be the case for all situations. In your zeal to be right about something you have forgotten that the premise is that I know exactly where you were at the time Bible study was to start. I proposed that the starting time was 7:30. You said that I got the time wrong.Of course you have elected to apply the correction to only one part of the problem so you can pretend that there is still an oprn issue. But by insisting on getting the time coordinates correct, you are advancing my argument. Thanks.I am not quite as patient as Son and cavediver. I won't fight through too many attempts like this one.

Hi Panda, You need to go back and read what I said as you have no concept of what I wrote.I do have a follow up question after NoNukes answers the question.God Bless,

I am done with your question.

Hi No, They have to try to occupy the same coordinates simultaneously that is what causes a collision.But you did not read what I said. You read what you thought I was saying.I said: "Now explain this to me.Using your coordinates 0,0,0 an object is headed to that coordinate from the North and another object is headed to that coordinate from the South, will they collide?Do they have to reach that coordinate simultaneously in order to collide?"The object was headed to your coordinates it was not headed anywhere else just to that coordinate. That means the object that got there first stopped at that coordinate.The other object could have arrived 1 minute later, 1 day later, 1 week later or even 1 year later they would have collided because two objects can not occupy the same space simultaneously.So they did not have to arrive simultaneously in order to collide. No.They did both have to arrive at the same coordinate and try to occupy the same coordinate simutaneously in order to collide.As I see it the problem is that what I call duration you call time.Duration can be measured by smaller than seconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. which is computed by dividing the duration it takes the earth to make one complete revolution relative to the sun. These divisions of duration are called time.What do you measure time with?God Bless,

And time does not have time. But objects have a duration. And since you defined it based on a certain form - a 2ft long 2 x 4, when it ceases to be in that form we can say the 2 x 4 existed was 2 inches thick, 4 inches wide, and 2 foot long and lasted 2.5 years. Right, its a property of the universe that you stay on the ground. Like it's a property of the universe that you travel through time. There's no need to do anything to 'achieve' it. As I have said, it is not a feat that is accomplished. It's what happens. You can travel forwards in time. That's travelling through time. If you had paid attention to Carroll's words you'd know that's the very interesting question that he's interested in. The laws of physics seem largely time direction neutral (as always its a bit more complicated in quantum physics I believe, but its basically true there too), so why does there seem to be an arrow of time with a past, present and future? He talks about entropy as potentially being an important clue as to an answer. Well, you're at odds with the best minds who have studied the subject for decades. Duration seems to vary depending on the observer and the speeds involved. As if some people were travelling through time faster than others. As if duration was in some sense 'relative', just as other dimensions can be.So I ask you a second time - what difference does is it make what we call time in relation to the topic?

Nonsense. Nothing in the problem statement requires this. The object was headed to 0,0,0 at some time, but that is not a statement that it will be headed there forever. Once the object gets there is it still 'headed there?' No. So stopping or continuing in the same direction each fail to meet your description. So simply giving a heading does not imply stopping at any point any more than it implies continuing to move. If you want the object to stop say so. After all we expect objects to continue in motion unless some force is applied. The more natural assumption is continued motion.Further we don't know whether the second object will reach and pass 0,0,0 before the first object ever gets there. If the second object is moving north or south, then continuing that direction does not insure a collision.But let's use your interpretation.You are attempting to create some state of affairs in which you don't have to specify time explicitly. But so what? Even if you manage it for some artificial problem, we both know that you are not describing a general case. So what's the point of your exercise?

Are you unable to answer my question?
Or do you realise that it invalidates your claims regarding time?I suspect it is the latter.

I see you lot are having a reification field day here and now. Play when the cat is away, hmm...? Is time any sort of medium you can travel through? If so what exactly is it made of? Is it more like water or is it rather like air?
In physics an object moves from A to B, not through anything unless a physical medium is really present. Away from or relative to an object A and towards or relative to an object B, that is. Co-ordinates are on the map only. Time is a sequence.Attributing direction to a sequence is a gross bigbangist fallacy. It could be made into a line for the purposes of cartography only. Like Minkowski intended. Note, for the same purposes space can be turned into a unidirectional line time is imagined to be. Into a rigid sequence. Location after location is the sequence. Always forward an object moves. No degrees of freedom for the lines on the map. You mice can call it the arrow of space. Otherwise it all relative. Co-ordinates are chosen arbitrarily relative to where you are at or wherever you start drawing the map from. Not to be confused with the territory lest you fall into the whole panoply of the bigbangist crypto-creo fallacies.

No. Its not a medium, its a dimension.

Are you saying that "God" is a physical object that exists at specific co-ordinates for everyone to see and touch? We do have to note that you didn't even specify any co-ordinates for God. That's the task... you specify the co-ordianates, and I specify the time.
I do understand, though... it is difficult for you to show this one...
Of course, if you can show this one, you'll do a lot more than prove time is not a dimension... you'll also get a Nobel Prize for finding God. Good luck. "Something" existed "in a well known form"?
Really?
First of all, all "well known forms" do not exist in a single location for all of time. That's exactly this exercise.
Secondly, you've stated "for all of the duration of it's existence"... so then at the time when it didn't exist... it obviously wasn't there.
Thirdly, the elevation specification of 1015 will refer to different heights as the Earth was different sizes at different times in the past. In fact, there's a point in the past when the Earth didn't even exist... therefore these co-ordinates didn't even exist. Therefore... there's a time where this this could not have existed at this location.Keep trying, though, if you can think of anything else.
The more leeway you try to take, though... gives me more leeway to simply shrug off your non-specific examples. It would make it more difficult to reject your suggestions if they were more specific.
But, of course, it's impossible... because time is a dimension, and all physical things do have a time component required to describe their location. The frame, for one. No, you can't.
If you don't specify a time, then there is no guarantee that the object will be there when I look. If it's not there... then you're not specifying it's location. You're guessing, and getting it wrong.
That's why you've failed in your previous two suggestions.
But feel free to keep trying, if you'd like. All you're doing is further strengthening the case that time actually is a dimension.

Hi Mod, Time does not have duration either. It is the measure of duration. Are you saying matter and energy can cease to exist?What was that thing I visualized as a 2 x 4? Wasn't it matter and energy? Wasn't what was left after I burned it in the fire matter and energy? I thought gravity was a property of mass, is that not the case?I can not travel through time. I can travel a length of something, I can travel the height of something, I can travel the width of something. All of those journey's would have duration which could be measured by our concept of time that our clocks keep. In my younger days I could run 100 yards and if that duration was timed with a stopwatch if would show that it took me 11:22 seconds to cover the distance from the start line to the finish line. Sorry that was the best I could do. So explain how we travel through time. I travel on my journey from the craddle to the grave.The duration from event to event along that journey can be measured with the method of telling time by the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun.I am not traveling through time. Time tells you the length of the duration between events in my life. Well the reason I can only go forward in life is that it is a continuning duration that has a start point and and end point here on earth.Now the reason I can not go backward in time is because it is not a dimension of the universe. That is very true. But I am not alone. Duration does not vary.Some folks clocks just run faster than other folks clocks. You can not speed the ratation of the earth up nor can you slow it down and that rotation relative to the sun is what seconds, minutes, hours, and days are based upon. EVERYTHING.If I remember the topis is concerning AM being the only non-creationist in this forum.If he is correct which he is not as I do not believe the universe had a beginning to exist, but has had duration in existence for infinite eternity past and will have infinite existence into future with makeover's along that journey.But creationist tell me that time is a dimension of the universe and time did not exist until the universe began to exist.God Bless,

Hi No, You leave your home and as you leave you tell your wife you are headed to the office (assume you give her the physical coordinates of the office). Would she expect that if she called the office 10 minutes after you arrived at those coordinates that you would answer the phone?Well according to your reasoning you would not stop at the office but head to another set of coordinates. AT least that is what you say about my objects that was headed to a specific set of coordinates. So your wife should assume that you are not going to stop at the office but keep going in some direction. I am not attempting to do anything. I gave you an example where the time of arrival of the two objects did not keep them from colliding as they could not occupy the same coordinates simultaneously. Just to show you that you did not know everything.God Bless,