"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article
,
kenseto wrote:

On May 2, 4:32 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
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 [...]

NONSENSE! You must learn to read what is written, not what you
personally want the writing to say.
__________________________________________________ ___________
The nonsense is on your part.
Seto said:
In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock.

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

Seto said:
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?

Roberts said:
NONSENSE! You must learn to read what is written, not what you
personally want the writing to say.

I asked you a civilized question you refused to answer it. What part
of my question is nonsense??
__________________________________________________ __________________


Your complete and utter inability to actually understand anything about
SR is a long-standing feature around here. It seems likely to me that
it
is related to your very poor reading comprehension, as illustrated by
your COMPLETE AND UTTER misunderstanding of what I wrote above.


What you wrote above is completely void of substance. You just gave me
a bunch of bull **** that I don't understand what SR says. But you
refused to tell me what SR is really saying.

Ken Seto

***{You have fallen prey to a very bad fallacy vis-a-vis "relativity,"
Ken. Here is your error: you expect to grab a relativist by the balls,
squeeze as hard as you can, and get "substance" back from him, rather
than very loud screeching and howling. Do you now see where you went
astray in your thinking? :-) --MJ}***

Yes indeed! Ken, for once you hit the nail on the head. Note that he
answered such questions in the past, for example:

"I conclude that the intrinsic clock rates remain unchanged, but
that the total elapsed time shown on each clock was determined by its
path through spacetime."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...a058ffa9430c42

He also added that "That is how SR interprets this" - but in fact SR does
not interpret but predicts; different people formulated and explained it
differently over the time. For example, Einstein wrote before developing GRT
(thus ignoring effects from gravitation):

"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of
the poles under otherwise identical conditions. " - Einstein 1905.

Harald