"kenseto" wrote in message
...
What's wrong with these pictures???

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

On the average, yes (taking any inertial frame as reference).

This means that
the passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the passage
of less than a clock second on the traveling clock.

Too simple, see above - the travelling clock is not a reference system, nor
is it all the time at rest in a valid reference system.

However when the
traveling clock rejoins the stay-at-home clock, the traveling clock
second is compared with the stay-at-home clock second directly to
reach the conclusion that the traveling clock is younger. It seems
that SR is making the contradictory claims that: (a) the passage of a
traveling clock second does not correspond to the passage of a stay-at-
home clock second. (b) the passage of a traveling clock second does
correspond to the passage of a stay-at-home clock second.

No, it does not even seem like that! BTW, do you know the meaning of
"paradox"?

2. In the pole and the barn paradox scenario:
SR claims that a physically longer pole can fit into a physically
shorter barn for a brief instant.

"Physically longer"? No. Of course, it depends what you mean with that word,
but Einstein stated the contrary:

"Physical Meaning [...] A rigid body which, measured in a state of rest, has
the form of a sphere, therefore has in a state of motion--viewed from the
stationary system--the form of an ellipsoid "

However SR also claims that nothing
is physically happening to the pole.

Some people may make such claims but not SR. For the claims by Einstein see
above; others such as Lorentz claimed that the length contraction of SR is
"real". But in fact, SR only states what will be observed.

The question is: If nothing is
physically happening to the pole how can a physically longer pole
fit into a physically shorter barn?

Well seen. :-)

Also, what about from the pole's
point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
when the barn is under go further physical contraction?

That's easy - did nobody tell you? As seen in standardized co-moving frame,
the back door closes after the front door. And if a crash is avoided by
opening the front door, this also happens before the back door closes.

Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.

That's why it's called a paradox. ;-)

3. The SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity: Einstein used the
train and lightning strikes example to derive his concept of RoS.

Which was already an old concept, but not perfected until 1905.

He
said that the track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous
because the speed of light is isotropic in the track frame

I'm afraid you did not read it well...

and the
track observer is located at equal distance from the strikes when the
strikes occur simultaneously. Also the track observer is not moving
wrt the light fronts from the strikes.
OTOH he also claimed that the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts from the strikes....

That is so according to the track observer...

the light front from the front of the train
will reach the train observer before the light front from the rear of
the train. This is why the train observer will not see the light
fronts to be simultaneous.

You should say: " This is why the train observer will not see the light
fronts to be simultaneous ACCORDING TO THE TRACK OBSERVER".

However Einstein failed to realize that his
explanation violates his postulate that the speed of light is also
isotropic in the train.....

No, Einstein DID state that as well as elaborate on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

at the time the strikes occur
simultaneously the trian observer is also at equal distance from the
strikes. Therefore the train observer must also sees the strikes to be
simultaneous.

No, your argument is faulty. Why should he claim that the strikes are
simultaneous?

Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.

In this case you simply missed the argument and failed to copy the
calculation...

[...]

Harald