On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
