"Uncle Al" wrote
...
El Enrrabadore-mor wrote:

It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
stopped near the stay-at-home clock.

The funny thing about this is that time and length change
at the same time, but not the ratio between both (velocity).

If we keep length constant, the only possible solution is
uniform circular motion. That is a twin travelling in circles,
of constant radius r, around the first twin assumed to be
stopped at the center of rotation.
[snip]

The experiment was done with Mossbauer spectroscopy in an
ultracentrifuge, rim to hub. READ IT.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v129/i6/p2371_1

Fe-57 14.4-keV Mossbauer absorption line traversing an ultracentrifuge
rotor was measured versus angular velocity omega. Fe-57 absorber
placed at 9.3 cm radius. Co-57 source mounted on a hub piezoelectric
transducer. Triangular voltage wave was applied to the transducer to
move source relative to absorber. The entire resonance line was
observed at various omega values. Measured transverse Doppler shift
agreed within 1.1% experimental error with relativity predictions.

Let's say the radius r is a constant value of 100 light-seconds
(r = 100c).
[snip crap]

Precision measurement over an artifical 18.7 million mile radius? Not
clever.

If not clever, why did you bring up the Mossbauer argument,
that you have qualify as "not clever" for a 100 second-light radius?

Do you pretend to measure resonance lines too?
Any frequency that is a multiple of the natural frequency will
cause resonance. So the 46 Years old experiment can only
be horse dung.

BTW, what's relativity prediction?