Hardly worth pointing out your errors and inadequacies again but here are a few of them:... SR Claims he traveled the full 60 miles.
... both clock Must tick in sync because:
... Distance at rest between A & B is 60 Miles, veloicty in both frames isx stipulted as being 60 Mph ...Time Dilation does happen but it is strictly due to clock time dilation and not length contraction - Sorry you lose.
You fail again and again to specify which frame your statements apply to as your intuition tells you that it is unnecessary. For example, you think that with 60 mile separation (between A & B, the start and turn around points) in the rest frame the twin travels 120 miles in his frame to make the total round trip. With no foundation in fact or experiment you reject the fact his TOTAL trip for him was only 60 miles because that seems intuitively obvious to you that it was 120 miles.
Thus you are even in error to claim SR says "he traveled the full 60 miles" (between A & B). SR says that ONLY for the rest frame observer of the trip. The traveling twin's round trip was half that which the rest frame observed or would have made if he walked the round trip. It is because you cannot even get straight what SR asserts that I say you do not understand SR. Yes I know that you reject SR too, but that is no excuse for not even telling what SR states correctly and claiming that you do.
Also SR states it is IMPOSSIBLE for the clocks in two different frames to "tick in sync." You think they do. You just do not get it when you say they MUST again because that seems intuitively obvious to you, especially as SR agrees that in their own frames they do tick at the same rate.
Effectively, as James R has pointed out, you don't understand the subject is RELATIVITY of frame 1 wrt frame 2, NOT frame 1 and frame 2 separately with some relativity effects intuitively (instead of mathematically) considered.
Your lack of mathematical ability and any formal education course on relativity does not make mathematical facts derived from its postulates wrong. You would need to show at least one of them to be wrong, despite being tested and confirmed thousands of times, with 100% of all tests passed. We are waiting ....
--------------------------------------
Many posters here have pointed out specifically where your errors are. (I most recently in my post 1246.) You never can do the same. For example you tell no error in my short post 1242 includes:
"... 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. ...
If you, contrary to > 100,000 physics Ph.D.s and millions of intelligent well-read laymen, think that d = D, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that extraordinary claim that they are all wrong and ONLY you* are correct. Note “proof” is not your "common sense" or opinion.
I and all others here are waiting for you to give any real proof that d = D instead of that d < D.
------------------
* 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.
---------------------
---------------------
BTW:
I would also like you to support your claim that matter contracts with speed as that also requires the simple theory Bohr set forth for CALCAULTING the radius of the hydrogen atom to vary with speed. (I.e. the computation of the "Bohr radius" does not make used the atom's speed.) At least quantatively tell how the contraction you postulate to occur goes as a function of the speed. And what is that speed measured with respect to? (Please remember that atoms experience very frequent and large accelerations in collisions with other atoms for their entire history, so don't given any of your "common rest frame" nonsense when answering.)..."
Pick either and tell where the error is and prove you are correct instead of SR.
I.e. prove d = D
Or
Tell how Bohr's calculation for the size of the hydrogen atoms should be corrected to make it shrink with speed and what is the reference for that speed is - the fixed point the speed is measured wrt too.
SR does not need any reference point for speed as SR does not make your silly unsupported claim that matter shrinks with speed.
Last edited by a moderator: