On May 2, 5:00*pm, PD wrote:
On May 2, 3:06*pm, kenseto wrote:





On May 2, 3:15*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

kenseto wrote:
What's wrong with these pictures???

Your personal misunderstandings.

1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock. * [...]

SR simply does NOT claim that. You REALLY need to learn about SR before
attempting to discuss it.

So ACCORDING TO YOU: the traveling clock has less elapsed time when it
rejoins the stay-at-home clock is not because it was running at slower
rate than the stay-at-home clock....right? Question: what is the cause
that the traveling clock shows less elapsed time?

Ken Seto

Your questions, Ken, would be answered if you would start reading real
books about relativity, rather than your strategy so far which has
been a) read something lightweight and extrapolate (incorrectly), b)
spend years on your own "theory" that makes more sense to you, c)
pushing your "theory" on the web, and d) using the critiques of your
"theory" as an opportunity to ask questions about relativity.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I do nto udnerstand the flaming.

If you think he is crazy, do not respond at all. This si what sensible
men will do.

If you respond, provide something of value. He asked three questions.
I gave my answers to him. Why don't you give yours.

I think you shy from giving answers because you have reasons for that.
Not because he is right or wrong, you got reasons.

Go ahead and answer, show the man where he is wrong. First fo all,
thye paradoxes of SR (twin, bug-rivet, polr-barn, and all variation
thereof) are paradoxes that cannot be resolved in the context of the
theory.

Maybe you have resolve them, have ya?

Mike