Hi Jesse, First, my name is Edgar, not Edward....
OK, even though I've answered this question of yours on several occasions, I'm willing to finally put it to bed once and for all. So please state in a non-ambiguous manner exactly what the question is AND what you think the implication of it is. As I understand it your question is there some exact relativistic clock time analogue of two tape measures crossing. Is that correct? And if so, what's the point? What difference does it make in your mind one way or the other? And again please clarify what you actually mean here, as obviously you don't think I understand what you mean. Please state the actual model you are getting at. Do you simply mean that two arbitrary worldlines can cross with the tape measure intervals representing clock time ticks? Yes, of course they can. If that's it then what's your point? If that's not it, then what is the actual model you have in mind? OK, so I'm completely willing to address this question in detail. Now would you be kind enough to show me the same courtesy by answering my questions about your block universe theory below? Thanks, Edgar On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:17:45 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Jesse, >> >> 1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you >> read this? >> > > Hey, more questions! But as usual, I see you demand that I answer your > questions while you pointedly ignore the question I have repeatedly asked > you about the meaning of "same point in spacetime", even after I put the > question into a form that only requires a simple "agree/disagree" type > answer--again see the last two paragraphs of > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/LF0Xcds_qtQJ. > Sorry Edward, but this is really rude behavior, adults having a civil > discussion understand that they are each expected to make some effort to > address the other's questions and arguments, you can't expect to have the > unique power to dictate what will be discussed (especially when the line of > discussion you are so stubbornly ignoring is one stemming from an argument > of mine that I think shows a basic mathematical contradiction in your ideas > about p-time simultaneity). I will be happy to answer all your questions > and arguments in detail, just as I have always done in the past, if you are > willing to address my question in some way--even if it's not a simple > agree/disagree answer, but something else like saying that you find the > question unclear and in need of clarification. But if you outright refuse > to talk about anything but your own preferred lines of argument, then I'll > take that as a sign that you are unwilling to show any basic respect to > others who disagree with you, and that you are only interested in lecturing > about your ideas rather than engaging in two-way conversation, in which > case there'd be no point in my responding to your posts any further. > > Jesse > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
