Erik says, in his last post that "The idea of stitching together frames makes sense." He italicizes the word "frames" though, as if somehow, stitching together "parts of frames" as I do in the video in Hydra 10, below.
He wants me to define what I mean by "stitching" which is obviously, not only defined, but demonstrated in the video. Of course, I could do that again, but what is the point, if he's intent on not watching it?
Perhaps a video demonstration with Mathematica would help? Perhaps, literally taking out pieces of paper and filming that process?
The other aspect of that Erik is claiming that some proof of pseudogravity at great distances exists... But he cannot show me that proof, and does not seem to see any importance of showing that proof, since supposedly everyone already knows about it from hear-say. Well, I shouldn't have to hear about such a simple proof from hearsay. I should be able to see it, right in front of me.
Here's the wierdest part of Erik's argument: ""You have been arguing that the object's velocity changes over time, due to a phenomenon that you have been calling 'force'"?"
This is ironic, because he's just made my argument much more powerfully than I could have made it. Yet he uses that as his arguement against me, rather than himself. Yes, Erik has been arguing that the Stay-At-Home Twin's velocity changes over time doing a phenomenon he has been calling "pseudogravity" which implies a "force".
The problem is, I don't think it is worth bringing that up right now... It is more important that I figure out how to acknowledge that argument in the context with which he meant it. Was he really thinking it somehow a serious counter-objection to my objection?