Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
>  gpilm9$ubq$2@news.motzarella.org
>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>> John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>  gph01v$9ou$1@news.motzarella.org
>>>> The size of a region of Einsteinian space varies according to the speed
>>>> of the observer, or the observer's 'frame'. But that same region can
>>>> itself be an observer frame, from which perspective its own size does
>>>> not vary.
>>>> 
>>>> Is this a contradiction?
>>> 
>>> When your twin brother looks at you from a distance through
>>> a gap between his fingers you look much smaller to him than
>>> he is and than he knows you are.
>>> Is that a contradiction?
>>> 
>>>> Are Einsteinian spatial positions variable in
>>>> number and position or fixed? We can get around the problem by saying
>>>> that Einsteinian space is, in its native state, not "spatial" at all.
>>>> Rather, it is composed of "unpositioned points". These "points" can
>>>> have
>>>> as many "positions" as there are observer frames. Thus, frames
>>>> construct
>>>> positions, and our senses join up the dots to create the hallucination
>>>> of "space".
>>>> 
>>>> But what are these observer 'frames' that construct positions? They
>>>> must
>>>> be positions themselves, there's not much else they could be.
>>> 
>>> You might greatly benefit from reading Robert Geroch's excellent
>>> "General Relativity from A to B" and coming back here in a few
>>> weeks.
>>> See
>>>  http://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-B-Robert-Geroch/dp/0226288641
>>> Warmly recommended.
>>> Enjoy.
> 
> I forgot to mention that you can preview a large part of this
> book at
>   http://books.google.com/books?id=rwPDssnbHPEC
> 
>>> 
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Is this a book-swapping newsgroup?
> 
> Not really.
> You ask interesting questions but it is clear that you are an amateur
> - and I'm not merely alluding to your choice of newsgroups here.
> Answering your questions would require putting straight your
> terminology first. One of purposes of the book I recommended is
> to teach amateurs like you to avoid making fools of themselves.
> But of course, if making a fool yourself by failing to properly use
> some technical answers you might get is your main goal here, by
> all means refuse to have a look at the book. If you want to remain
> ignorant, please remain ignorant.
> Otherwise, spend the rest of the day taking that preview and enjoy.
> It is 100% up to you. This book is arguably the best you can get.
> Dirk Vdm
> 
> (removed alt.philosophy from followup groups list)
> 

My post has disappeared. I will put it again.
You are miscasting me to fit your standard response. I am not a student,
I am a thinker. Any quibbles over terminology can be sorted out en route.