On 04.01.2013 22:49, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Jan 4, 10:03 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >> On 04.01.2013 14:36, Pentcho Valev wrote: >> >>> Clever Draper, >> >>> Special relativity predicts both - that the travelling twin proves younger >>> and that the sedentary twin proves younger >> >> Can you prove that the Lorentz transform predicts this? >> >> We all know that you can't, which I am sure you will demonstrate >> by failing to do so. > > On the other hand, the little professor from Trondheim has > demonstrated that he has failed miserably at understand the Lorentz > transform. <shrug> > >>> - but Einsteiniana's scenarios demonstrate only the former >>> prediction and conceal the latter. >> >> Here you can see the twin scenario from both twins' point of view: >> >> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html > > Good job, paul. You have handed over the material that proves you > have no understanding of what the Lorentz transform is all about. > <shrug> > > When B is not accelerating, the Lorentz transform says there is no way > to tell absolutely who is traveling and who is not. Time dilation > should be building up when A observes B as well as when B observes A. > The JAVA applet does not reflect what the Lorentz transform says. You > may want to decrease the acceleration distance to just 1 and increase > acceleration to 2 for a better dramatic effect. <shrug> > > paul?s gross blunder: The mutual time dilation is building up when B > is not accelerating. The applet violates the principle of > relativity. <shrug>
I won't bother to quibble about your nonsense. Nobody cares about your babble anyway.
> > Hopefully, paul remains ignorant on this one since else he would > remove the material just like he did with the rest of his blunders. > <shrug>
I have deleted nothing. I have however changed the host for my homepage, so the pointers in old postings in the Google archive won't work. My current homepage is at the bottom of the page.