Re: Einstein ever defined TIME?

From: Eric Gisse (fsegg_at_uaf.edu)
Date: 11/10/04 

Date: 10 Nov 2004 00:52:44 -0800

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<q1g2p0phvh1mb48ll991qajv65kt465msk@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 23:28:09 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:evvno0p5rt2rcjflultn70dgd331h11mv3@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:32:19 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> >> wrote:
> >> >OK, Henri.
> >> >I have had my fun, and I don't think I will bother to
> >> >play with you any more in this thread.
> >> >
> >> >Your definition of "time" is meaningless babble, and cannot
> >> >be the issue of a meaningful discussion.
> >> >You didn't think I took this "discussion" seriously, did you? :-)
> >> >Your definition of you indefinable time is too stupid for that.
> >>
> >> Paul, I realise that you cannot understand anything that is not in a book.
> >
> >Quite.
> >As opposed to you, I can understand what are in books.
>
> All right, now back to the topic.
>
> Why do you reject the idea that time might have more than one subdimension?

For the simple reason that you have no proof that time has any
"subdimensions", whatever the *** those are, nor do you have a
cohesive theory that can be used to make predictions.

Your "theories" simply consist of you telling us what you think the
universe acts like. No math, no quanitative predictions.

>
> >
> >Paul
> >
>
>
> HW.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Quantcast