Hi Mark,

Ha ha, I love it! Why not go one step further and call it the "ether"? It has always struck me personally that the scientific community has never managed to free itself from the concept of the "ether" at all; they have just renamed it the "spacetime continuum".

Conceptually, there is utterly no difference between saying light is a vibration of the "ether" and saying it is a subtle distortion of "spacetime".

Is there anyone on this forum who thinks they can support the validity of any of these four statements:

How many of these statements are true?

1.) An ideal clock measures time! That is, the admonishment "only if it is at rest in the frame of reference being used" is a superfluous constraint on the truth of the statement.

2.) The concept of an "ideal clock at rest" does not violate any concepts of Quantum Mechanics!

3,) The reading on an ideal clock in motion is not a direct measure of the change in proper time along its space-time trajectory.

4.) Time and proper time are exactly the same thing!

I hold they are all false and that reconcilation of that fact requires some thought.

Have fun -- Dick

• Spacetime Continuum= x,y axis - kantolfir2 - December 23, 2003 - 21:46 UTC
• I never really thought of it like that.... - smartguy - December 24, 2003 - 06:31 UTC
  • "Perhaps" and "it seems" back atcha? :-) - quiet - December 24, 2003 - 08:11 UTC
• RElative motion locks a fixed frame by definition? - dolphin - December 24, 2003 - 08:25 UTC