Re: A Very Simple But Fundamental Question
- From: "Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:59:39 -0400
The TimeLord wrote:
Am Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:56:50 -0700 schrieb Symmetry Observer
<mathxxmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
896af829-0712-444d-a432-ba57976a88b8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
If in Special Relativity, we let u denote the proper time of an
observer (the invariant time carried by an observer in his rest
frame).
Have to stop right there. The observer does not have proper time.
Proper time, by definition exists on the object being observed. Also
time is not invariant.
BZZZZZT
Wrong
Time is science is "invariant"
I think you should try and come back to science some
yr.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A Very Simple But Fundamental Question
- From: The TimeLord
- Re: A Very Simple But Fundamental Question
- References:
- A Very Simple But Fundamental Question
- From: Symmetry Observer
- Re: A Very Simple But Fundamental Question
- From: The TimeLord
- A Very Simple But Fundamental Question
- Prev by Date: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
- Next by Date: [OT] FORTRAN Relativity; was Re: A Very Simple But Fundamental Question
- Previous by thread: Re: A Very Simple But Fundamental Question
- Next by thread: Re: A Very Simple But Fundamental Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|