PS: And in your nice long numerical example, which I thank you for, it 
seems to me what you are doing is calculating the proper time length of 
every segment of A's trip in terms of C's proper time. Isn't that correct?

But if so aren't you in fact establishing a 1:1 correlation of proper times 
between A and C with your method?

And isn't that what you keep telling me CAN'T BE DONE?


On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:31:24 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen <<javascript:>
> > wrote:
> Jesse,
> I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world 
> line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) 
> because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting? 
> Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree when we 
> actually do agree. Remember we are not counting points here, at least I'm 
> not, we are trying to find the truth....
> I'm not "resistant" in general, I have said "I agree" to a number of 
> agree/disagree questions you asked in the past. But in this one case I was 
> expressing irritation because from your question it seemed pretty obvious 
> you either hadn't read, or hadn't paid any attention to, my discussion of 
> "lengths" in the post you were responding to. If you really, really can't 
> deduce my opinion on this from statements like this:
> "in terms of proper times C > B > A which is the opposite of how it works 
> with spatial lengths"
> or:
> "in spatial terms a stra
> ...

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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to