The guy that wrote this is just misinformed:

"Now, if one takes the definition of time to be "what clocks read" then it is a well known fact that clocks read exactly the time-like invariant interval between any two points along the space-time path of the clock. (even under
acceleration). Now, in Einstein's relativity, that measurement is only "time" in the rest frame of the clock (clearly, only in the rest frame can the two *different* definitions be fulfilled). Don't you find it strange that these "clocks" always measure a very specific thing, independent of the coordinate system? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to state that clocks measure "proper-time"?"

Clocks do measure proper time so it is reasonable to say clocks measure proper time. So what is your problem? You think it would be 'more reasonable' if clocks measure proper time? Well they do. Or is it that clocks don't measure 'time' regardless how it is defined? You say some pretty stupid stuff. I think you are and idiot and you think I am and idiot. So frig off.

• I think Bruce said he is not a physicist - carefuluniverse - April 21, 2002 - 02:21 UTC