Re: Proper quantities in SR

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1183445757.869053.126260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 3, 2:50 am, "rot...@xxxxxxxxx" <rot...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I dunno. To me, "proper" always means "in the object's rest frame",

That's the general idea but that is not always its meaning in physics.

Eg. proper time between two events: no "objects" involved; or, is the
observer the object? If so then proper time is frame dependent and
thus not 'constant', not an absolute quantity.

But "proper mass" (just "mass") has the same value in any frame.

Depending on the definition or context of 'proper', it is not
necessarily an 'absolute'.

Clocks are not affected by motion but a clock moving away from
you will appear to be because light has a finite propagation
speed.

You make it sound like its just an illusion .. its not

if you know the speed of the clock and the speed
of light you can calculate what the clock would show if
light propagated instantly. It would match your own,
thus *proper-time*.

No .. it wouldn't .. again you seem to lack an understanding of SR

It is actually *proper* only to
the observer moving with it.

The clock moving toward you is not considered in
space-time formulation because advanced potential
violates causality.

WTF .. you really do post some rubbish


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proper quantities in SR
    ... If so then proper time is frame dependent and ... Clocks are not affected by motion but a clock moving away from ... the observer moving with it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Proper quantities in SR
    ... That's the general idea but that is not always its meaning in physics. ... observer the object? ... If so then proper time is frame dependent and ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)