Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Lightweight

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Bruce on October 25, 2001 20:03:30 UTC

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.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins