|
Sorry Mike,
My definition of time is scientifically rigorous; the real problem here is that you do not comprehend how such a simple definition is sufficient to generate all the "time" phenomena examinable in any scientific exploration. I don't think your understanding of math (the very essence of rigorous logic) is sufficient to follow my derivations.
See if you can find someone capable of leading you through the presentation at
http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm
And, I can and do prove a considerable bulk of other statements using that simple basic definition of time. The only reason you don't believe it is because you can not follow the proofs. You will find a number of significant proofs in
http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/Contents.htm
I am afraid that the definition of time which you, and the academy, uses is fundamentally hazy and not "rigorous" at all. It is that lack of rigor which people use to "prove" time travel is possible. I am afraid you will have to build a functioning time machine and generate a considerable number of satisfied customers before I will accept that such a proof as worth the effort of examination.
On the other hand, with regard to my definition, all you need do to defeat it as a valid definition is to give a single example of a real repeatable experimental phenomena where the results are not rigorously consistent with my definition. And I do not even have to look at
www.geocities.com/earthinspace2002/gowhence.htm
But I did anyway! All you do is contend that thinking about different times is time travel. That is completely equivalent to saying looking at pictures of the grand canyon fulfills the definition of travel to the grand canyon. Try and pass that off as a competitive vacation plan to the general public! It's nothing more than pie in the sky daydreams! Let me know when you put your money where your mouth is: i.e., when you start financing some travel agencies to sell tickets for real money.
Have fun (I know you are!) -- Dick
|
