On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jesse, > > Glad we agree on the first point but, even if there is some minimum time > limit to the criss crosses, you miss the real point of my example. Let me > restate it: > > Since a criss cross symmetric trip is NO DIFFERENT IN PRINCIPLE than our > previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have > proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during > EVERY minimum time interval of the trip EVEN IF THERE ARE NO CRISS CROSSES. > Nonsense. We both agree that in case A where they are right next to each other throughout the whole trip (same spatial position at every single moment), there is an objective 1:1 correlation in their ages throughout the trip. We disagree about whether there is a 1:1 correlation throughout the trip in case B, where they do NOT occupy the same position through the trip. So now you think you can "prove" your belief about CASE B by considering a series of cases that IN THE LIMIT would have a 1:1 correlation throughout the trip, even though IN THE LIMIT this just reduces to CASE A, which we already agreed on? Sorry, but this fails basic logic. 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.
