"colp" wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > Wrong. The burden of proof is yours. You can't support them because no > such support exists.
Wrong .. YOU are the one making claims that SR contains paradoxes. The burden of proof is on YOU to support those claims. You haven't. You make the ASSERTION that the turnaround in the twins paradox has no effect on the measurement of the clocks, and so you ignore it. That is wrong. A full SR analysis of the scenario results in a self-consistent result regardless of frame of reference. Your partial analysis, leaving out the key factor, does not. Do you want to see that math? I've offered many times, and you keep ignoring it. Or are you just a troll who isn't interested in learning the physics?