StringJunky

He's putting obstacles in the way to justify his inaction. The reality is, some people see others with their mind's eye and others see in the literal physical sense. He will fit someone's idea of attractive.

But does the ruler negatively or positively accumulate length, like a clock, after it's travelled? Even a teeny, tiny bit; it's just that the instruments aren't accurate enough? This was the essence of my question.

If you find a way, let me know, there is plenty I want to unremember. Memories are not stored like whole photographs in a box. Different details of memories are stored in different parts of the brain, so it's not currently possible to target specific memories for the shredder.

As my grandad used to say: "As long as you put shit in a bag you can sell it." Clearly, the more bags the better.

I know, but Islamic culture eg Saudi, acts, judicially, as I wrote.

I think this will meet with your approval:

We've got through half a century each without needing one, haven't we?

A culture's ethics are subjectively derived, thus, it follows that it's citizens ethics are subjectively derived, generally.

In Islamic cultures that means " Do to others as they would do to you"; an eye for an eye. The death penalty is "fair" in that culture. As I said: culture defines morality.

Right. I was thinking in that post of the finite time it takes for light from an an event or object o reach an observer, so based on that, they can never be in the now of that event regardless of the distance.

It's fine that you believe what you believe but don't call it objective and don't throw the subjectivity card in a subjective subject.

Brutal... on the ears as well!

I basically repeated what you said, I realised after.... duh!.

Only the observed object is in the now isn't it? All observers see it in the past, whatever the distance.

Never mind mate, we all have 'em.

OK. the comment echoed my thought although I would have worded different. The point remains that It was not clear to me what your angle was for discussion. To the discussion: Some valuables/money never got stolen and somebody had more chance of being killed than if the robbers had been left to get on with it. A life is not worth risking losing .for the sake of some personal property.

You never made that clear. I interpreted it as I did. Your fault for nor not elaborating in your OP

Because it is. The author of that thread in its title asks: "If more #Pulse club patrons were armed, could they have thwarted the #OrlandoShooting ?" He then uses that attempted bank robbery video as justification for carrying arms.

From the comments:

I know, if the two lengths are compared simultaneously in their respective positions, but I was wondering why the ruler doesn't stay at the length it was in space like the clock stays at the same time position but, as Mordred pointed out, the clock does resume its original frequency back on Earth but just happens to leave a trace of what it was in space. It appears that a ruler can't do that

Gotcha. The ruler can't leave a trace what length it was before.

Any possibility of elaborating a bit more?

Michel Thinking about your problem. Everything starts from axioms and the one you need to accept is that the act of measuring and its results, regardless of our preconceptions, is king in science.

If we send a clock up into space or take it on a high speed journey then bring it back it will not be synchronised with a clock that was in the same position at the start. If we send a ruler out in the same type of experiment, has its length changed when it is returned to its starting position? If it hasn't changed why not, if a clock does? What's different about them that one is permanently changed but the other isn't?