Alan,

>>>"...how can you MEASURE it? Only by comparing (time) with another arbitrary path length to see if it is longer or shorter."

Right - time and space are relative measurements... but this is hardly news, Alan. Indeed, the term relative should indicate to you that this is what Einstein said 100 years ago!

>>>"...(Stafford) has reduced the local environment to its smallest state, and 'time' vanished..."

If this is true then Stafford is trying to solve the physics equivalent of the Lincoln assassination, and he's implicating Millard Filmore. In other words, he's a little bit late, and a whole lot wrong. Hate to burst your vicarious bubble, but Planck et al beat Stafford to the punch by many, many years:

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Planck.html

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm

>>>"...your answer can thus only be a PROPER STRUCTURE projected by the comparison..."

You (like Stafford) seem to be running into a brick wall. The search for a 'proper structure' comes from an inability to understand the philosophical implications of relativity. There is no priveleged frame of reference. Period.

You, I, and everyone else reading this seem to share some metaphysical 'proper time,' because the universe is expanding, and this expansion is ubiquitous. Any earthly velocities any of us might achieve are virtually insignificant compared to this shared rate of expansion (i.e., time).

-LH

• The frames are all proper? - dolphin - August 4, 2002 - 09:24 UTC