alt.sci.physics

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:55:44 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

>Dear vertuas:
>
>"vertuas" wrote in message
>news: $ @ ...
>> I'm not saying anything, I'm just trying to establish
>> what time is.
>>
>> To the common people it is something that was
>> invented to organise the day/year whatever, and is
>> displayed upon a clock face. This definition of time cannot be
>> the same "time" spoken about by
>> physicists when refereing to space-time.
>>
>> The time that we all use to organise our daily lives
>> doesn't really exist and therefore cannot be used
>> as a basis for physical theorem and equations.
>
>I reject your "establishment" of what time is.
>
>> However there must some other definition of time
>> that is used in physics.
>>
>> No one is yet able to explain this definition of time
>> yet we trust physicists to use it a basis for many things.
>
>What Science yields is a consistent result. Results that are
>mutually compatible. And these are achieved in an adversarial
>system, where proponents have to show all their cards, and other
>scientists try to tear the result apart.
>
>Your opinion is shared by people that sell snake oil, and do not
>have to defend their work (because they frankly make something
>that will attract paying customers). If you are really
>interested in "what time is", try this search:
>
>"stochastic process"
>
>Then read between the lines.
>
>David A. Smith
>
David, the story of the "Emperor's close" has remained in the
literature for a good reason. Past conventions have always existed
and hard to change. Men successfully sailed the oceans even though
they thought the earth to be flat.