On Apr 25, 8:04 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain
either errors or misconceptions.

Yes, such as the following misapplication of the Lorentz transform
demonstrates.

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html

The mistake is definitively pointed out in the following.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...M/Yf-2nu9pllUJ

shrug

But the basic idea is solid,

The twins’ paradox is a manifestation of the Lorentz transform. It
can easily be shown so and done for you in the above link. So, we
have no idea what you are talking about what this basic idea is. You
mean the stuff you have BELIVED IN? shrug

and has been experimentally demonstrated

What do you mean “experimentally demonstrated”? Do you mean no
experimental observations of the twins’ paradox? Of course, we can
tell you that. It does not require an experiment to tell you that
flying pigs just don’t exist. You don’t have to spend a lot of money,
effort, and energy to look for a paradox. We don’t think you know
what you are talking about. shrug

-- there is no doubt whatsoever that in the world we
inhabit the elapsed proper time of a clock depends on its path through
spacetime;

What type of bull**** is that? If you are telling us that the flow
rate of time between two frames of references can be different, we
accept that. So, there is the flow rate of time of the observer, and
there is the flow rate of time of the observed which can be called the
local time. There is no proper time unless you are desperately trying
to spin more mysticism to perpetuate your religion of SR and GR.
shrug

Given the Lorentz transform below,

** dx” = (dx – v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dy” = dy
** dz” = dz
** dt” = ( dt – v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

You can write down the following from the four equations above.

** c^2 dt”^2 – dx”^2 – dy”^2 – dz”2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2

Then, you can certainly write down the following.

** c^2 dt”^2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2

In this case, dt” is the flow rate of time of “ frame or local time.
So, where is the proper time? It does not exist. shrug

two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.

Yes, and this proves SR piece of **** since SR is incapable of
predicting such a case without invoking a gross misapplication of the
Lorentz transform. shrug