You are claiming astronomical data proves the moving twin witnessed 12 earth years by the earth orbits.
But, then you claim because your clock claimed only 10 earth orbits occurred then 12 earth orbits occurred by your observations and 10 earth orbits occurred by your clock.
So, your clock contradicts your scientific observations.
Thus, your clock is wrong.
Hi chinglu.
Not much time again today, so I may have to leave in a hurry. Until then, in a rush...
I am NOT claiming anything; I am just explaining that YOU are the one 'claiming' something on behalf of the traveling twin's clock that the clock itself is NOT 'claiming' for itself AT ALL.
Did you understand what I meant when I said that the clock data set is totally disconnected from external data sets; and that any 'connection' between them is made by YOU; but that YOU fail to include the necessary BRIDGING allowances/interpretations that would allow YOUR 'connecting' the two data sets to be consistent with the objective reality and not produce some inadvertent 'paradoxical connection' because YOU do not make those bridging allowances/interpretations correctly?
Consider (again): The two clocks will tick their 'seconds' at different rates (ie, the duration between 'ticks' will be of different lengths, as per already explained motional state difference effects on the traveling twin compared to the 'starting standard' duration length between 'ticks' in the 'starting' motional state (Earth's).
So, the TOTAL ABSOLUTE 'count' number in the traveling twin clock will be 10/12th the total absolute 'count' number of the Earth twin clock.
And THAT IS ALL you can say about it. The clocks don't 'claim' anything about the Sun-Earth POSITIONAL states per se...that is a CORRELATION MADE BY YOU. BUT if you do not allow for the two clocks' DIFFERENT absolute count number, then you cannot 'bridge' the two disparate data sets AT ALL.
So, you see? The two clocks make NO 'claims' about anything EXCEPT to 'present you' with their RESPECTIVE CUMULATIVE 'absolute counts' which will DIFFER as explained. Only when you realize that the two counts can BOTH be correlated to the astronomical POSITION/CYCLE 'counts', THEN you know you must introduce bridging allowance/interpretation factor (ie, a 'correction factor' if you like) to:
- EITHER adjust the Earth clock 'count' to show what the TRAVELING clock 'ticked off' for the same Earth-sun cycle/orbit number...
- OR...adjust the Traveling clock 'count' to show what the Earth clock 'ticked off'...
- OR...leave the Earth clock 'count' alone (because it was never 'disconnected' from the sun-earth starting standards, ie, it never went out of synch with the Earth 'year' cycling)....AND merely...
- ONLY adjust the traveling clock 'count' number to show what the Earth clock shows and thus automatically showing the 12 'years' that Earth clock ticked off even as the traveling clock ticked off OSTENSIBLY '10 years' BUT really was ticking off the SAMNE astronomical data/duration AT A DIFFERENT 'tick value/rate' which produced a DISCONNCETED data set which WITHOUT proper adjustment (as explained) would leave you to incorrectly 'claim' that the 10 years worth of 'seconds' clock count were somehow the same as the 12 years worth of 'seconds' for the Earth clock.
And it is because YOU are making 'claims' to 'connect' the two clocks' tick counts as if they were 'on par' with each other, you keep making the 'paradox' claim which is not valid when the two data sets are properly correlated.
Your conclusion is made worse when you keep using terms like "lived through", "witnessed" astronomical data set etc as if it meant "aged" through the same data set. Which you obviously do NOT if your clock/biology 'ticks/ages' at a different rate/value depending on what motional state you have been in for the experiment run during which you make EXTERNAL astronomical observations while your clock/biology JUST INHERENTLY ticks off your specific value/number of 'seconds', and nothing else. Anything else is AFTER the event and brought by YOU making 'claims' and 'connections' which have NOT been properly 'bridged' between the two causally disconnected data sets.
Anyhow, gotta go. Please read again what I posted to you before in the light of what I just posted now. There is a cogent reason why I have tried to point to your conflating two different concepts and not correctly correlating/bridging two separate data sets etc etc, as already explained. Until you 'get' the subtle points made, you will keep kneejerking past them and making your same 'misconnections' between two data sets and making your 'misclaims' about 'clock claims' which are not being made by the clocks at all (again, as explained).
Logging out! Bye and good luck and good discussing to you, chinglu, everyone.