On Jan 19, 8:05 am, rotchm wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

“Mathematically, the twins’ paradox is proven to be impossible in real
life by the very mathematics.”

Nope.

Wrong answer. shrug

Why is it a false statement? The twins’ paradox presents this paradox
where each twin observes the other to be younger at the same time and same place.

Nope. That is NOT what SR says/implies.

Another wrong answer.

SR implies that the inertial clock *you pose* as "staying home" will
indicate a greater value than the other one that rejoins it..

What does imply mean? Does it or does it not? Wishy washy? shrug

Due to the symmetry of the Lorentz transform, what you have claimed is
not possible. shrug Want to show some math?

Depending on the narrated scenario, authors interpret/call this as
"aging". SR simply says tt' (and by how much). The rest is our
personal wordings that are not part of relativity.

So, you have different words describing time flow rate, and depending
on the scenario, you will use each word to mystify the argument.
shrug

The said observed result
just can never happen in real life.

Liar. It has been done and observed.

Bull****. A paradox by definition can never be observed in nature. A
paradox represents an impossible event. shrug

It is done and observed on a regular basis.

Liar. shrug

Amazing garbage. A paradox is a contradiction and cannot possibly
have been observed.

True. But you are confusing the two different meanings of "paradox".
(1) A paradox is an *apparent* contradiction.
(2) a paradox is a contradiction.

In the Twin "paradox", the word paradox has the first (1) meaning, not
the second one. You need to learn the meaning of the words used in our
community if you want to understand us.

So, you are treating physics as interpretation of some scripture. You
just fvck with the word until it means what you want it to mean. What
an idiot! shrug