I know all about 'time as a psychological concept',and have even used it myself in issues where the concept of 'beginning' is questionable ! But the issue here is that you appear to be completely ignorant about paradigmatic modelling and contextual semantics.(Kuhn, Wittgenstein, Derrida et al) nor do you seem to understand that our concept of 'physicality' is a function of our species specific percetuql system (Kant, Heisenberg). All of this renders your 'straight line' assertion completely facile and as philosophically vacuous as your 'lack of physical evidence for God' assertion.
Sorry, if you think this is a bit 'heavy' . I was going to 'keep my mouth shut' on your anti Einstein twaddle etc, but your follow up indicated that you needed to be 'sorted out'.
You seem to be going in for long assertive unreferenced speeches . But I have no intention of commenting further on the points I make above. If interesred you can find them well argued and illustrated by investigating my dozen years of posting history here.
Oh, I see.
What a great disappointment of yours.
Having you reading and learning from all those dudes, suddenly, in the middle of a discussion a dude comes and tells you that time doesn't exist, otherwise you must show the evidence of its existence.
A simple use of a measurement tape or ruler demonstrates you that the shortest way between 2 points is the straight line, and I see you looking for refuge inside Kuhn, Wittgenstein, Derrida and other dudes' thoughts.
Well, you now know that those dudes from the past were all suckers who didn't know what they were talking about, and they can't help you to demonstrate here with a simple tool as I did, that space is curve, that time exists, etc.
And this is the difference between "proof" and "belief".
Your teachers taught you beliefs, no one teacher demonstrated you that the distance between 2 points is a curve line, do you remember?
They only showed you drawings made by a lunatic, they only told you so, but no one of them demonstrated you what they were teaching.
They used "logic", they used "conventional ideas" but they didn't prove anything in front of you.
And this is your disappointment, all your life wasted learning sh*t.
Don't think that showing to be so "intellectual" in this discussion will give you points in your argument.
In science evidence is what it rules, science demand "proof".
You don't have it, then you are not talking about science, you are talking about something else.