> And that is the whole sorry sad truth of the matter.  Saying time is what
> a clock reads (its proper time is invariant) is simply a starting point to a
> deeper appreciation found by actually studying the physics.  Like so many
> fundamental things hard and fast definitions are difficult to come by.  As
> I have remarked elsewhere even the concept of what an algorithm is is open
> for debate; even though it was supposedly resolved by the Church-Turing thesis.
> Those that write programs get by quite happily without worrying about such
> things; and I can attest from personnel experience gain quite a deep
> appreciation of what an algorithm is over time.   Those that do physics
> get by quite happily with the definition of time being what clocks measure.
> It is only those interested in philosophy that wish to delve deeper.

That's all a bunch of bullshit reasoning to cover over the fact that you
don't know what you're talking about.  You know and can define distance,
mass, gravity, velocity and many other properties of nature, and yet you
cannot define time.  But because you cannot, you assert that it's what
clocks measure, which is like saying that temperature is what thermometers
measure and distance is what scales measure.  You don't define or describe a
property by simply coming up with the name for a devise used to measure it.

But even if this were acceptable, then at least define that which does the
measuring.  But can you define those mechanisms which fit the definition of
a clock and those which do not?  By stumbling and bumbling around, you've
basically said that any mechanism is a clock.  Are you starting to see the
ridiculousness of the trap you're in?  Do you not get it yet?

You think velocity is the derivative of time and distance even through
velocity is as easily observable, definable, and measurable as distance is.
Yet time, for all of it's mysticism, is the fundamental property and
velocity is the derivative?

When will it not occur to you that time is nothing more than a concept.
It's simply the derivative of velocity and distance and that's all.


>  But even
> philosophy types will not take a position that is easily seen to be wrong,
> such that time is velocity - and when showen to be incorrect respond with
> a theory does not have to meet every observable fact.

Because time is not velocity.  Time is the derivative of distance and
velocity.