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,

This is a bunch of bull ****. You don't have a good answer to my
question so you sent me off to read a bunch of books??
My question: What is the cause for the traveling clock shows less
elapsed time than the stay-at-home clock? This question arises because
you and Roberts denied that the traveling clock shows less elapsed
time because it is running at a slower rate.
Also do you now deny that every SR observer claims that all clocks
moving wrt him are running slow?

Ken Seto

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 -