I have already, several times told you, but once more:
TT travels a TOTAL contracted distance 2d < 2D, where D is the separation between the start and turn around points in RT's frame.
In TT's frame these two points are only d apart.
As both clocks, in their own frame mark off the same duration second, and both agree the other is separating from them at Speed , S, the duration of the trip is:
For RT: 2D/S
For TT: 2d/S
Because d < D, TT's clock records less than RT's clock does. Was that short enough for you?
Well since you clearly don't understand algebra and can't even do 3rd grade arithmatic, let me break it down for a dummy.
Assume A--------->B is 60 miles when measured at rest and the velocity we are talking about is 60 Mph. The Dilation and contraction is based on actual velocity of 0.866c.
Now that means the resting observer expects the trip to take 1 hour that is 3,600 seconds or
60 seconds (clock ticks)/mile..
Do you agree with that physics requirement? Yes/No
If No then this conversation is over.
Now while SR claims the traveling twin goes from A--------->B it also claims that the distance is only 30 miles and takes him 30 minutes. He is also traveling the same 60 Mph.
Do you agree with these physics? Yes/No.
If No this discussion is over.
Now you can see that going 30 miles in 30 minutes means it took him 1 minute/mile. That comes out to
60 second (clock ticks)/mile.
Hmmmmm. The clocks are ticking the same.
Therefore there can be no arguement about the time displayed on the clocks when the traveling twin arrives back because the clocks tick for tock accumulate time in lock step and the game ends when the traveling twin returns home.
That means the resting clock never reaches 1 hour and never sees him go more than half way.
There clocks are ticking in sync, no and's, if's or buts and that means they display the same accumulated time when he returns and SR is shown to be physically inconsistant.
------------------
* a self-taught, retired, power-plant engineer and business man, who is not even able to follow the mathematical derivation of SR from its two basic postulates.
1 - I have told you I am not going to keep responding to all this off topic, irrelevant and personal attack BS.
2 - I do want to correct your false accusation here that I was self taught. I attended formal college classes taught by degreed people.
3 - You don't seem to understand the difference between not understanding something and rejecting it. It is because you are blinded by your own ignornace that you believe anybody that doesn't accept SR doesn't understand SR.
If you ever pull your head out of the fog and realise SR IS falsified then you too will reject it.
Did you actually read and understand what "DoubleThink" is?