Starting with Einstein's 1905 paper, the formula showing how precisely the moving clock lags behind the stationary one is easy to derive:

Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

In contrast, anti-relativists have never been able to derive the stationary-clock-lags-behind-moving-clock formula, even though time dilation is symmetric in special relativity. Why? Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, provides a clue:

"In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p. 105 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

The situation becomes clearer. Einsteinians have absolutized the moving-clock-checked-against-two-stationary-clocks scenario, and put in a hiding place the symmetric, stationary-clock-checked-against-two-moving-clocks scenario. If anti-relativists had known about this second scenario, Einstein's relativity would have been long forgotten.

Imagine that all ants spread out on the closed line have clocks and move with constant speed:

http://cliparts101.com/files/131/AB2B0036DC553691775E012D449DEC62/ant_border_rectangle.png

A single stationary ant, with a clock, is located in the middle of one of the sides of the rectangle. As moving ants pass the single stationary ant, they check its (stationary) clock against their (moving) clocks. For this scenario, special relativity predicts that the single stationary clock will show LESS AND LESS time elapsed than moving clocks consecutively passing it. This implies that the single stationary ant is getting YOUNGER AND YOUNGER than moving brothers.

Clearly, the twin paradox is actually an absurdity, which means that the underlying premise, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

The insane but all-powerful ideology of the Einstein Cult in action:

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back.. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/cmchap11.pdf

So, all along, the traveler sees himself aging FASTER than stationary people, but, during the short turning-around period, "enough strangeness" occurs and stationary people suddenly get very old:

"At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] Ah, but in order to return to Earth, the spaceship must slow down, stop moving, turn around and go back the other way. During those periods of deceleration and deceleration, it is not an inertial frame and therefore the normal rules of special relativity don't apply. When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox

Actually, the "enough strangeness" is a euphemism for "homogeneous gravitational field" - a preposterous hoax Einstein devised in 1918. This homogeneous gravitational field is due to the turning-around acceleration of the traveling twin and affects stationary clocks - makes them run very fast (which means that stationary people suddenly get very old):

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Starting with Einstein's 1905 paper, the formula showing how precisely
> the moving clock lags behind the stationary one is easy to derive:
>
> Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From
> this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A
> and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary
> system,

*/_Douglas_Macgregor_–_Not_Good_Strategy_/*

“The Russians moved in with a force of 150,000 troops, 80,000 of whom were
combat troops, against 600,000 Ukrainians. So the Russians were always
outnumbered. But the Ukrainians were also advised to do some things that
were not very smart” – Douglas Macgregor with some insights into the war
in Ukraine that you wont hear from the MSM

Pirooz Mohazzabi, Qinghua Luo, Department of Mathematics and Physics, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, USA: "Despite many attempts that have been made to resolve the twin paradox, none of them have been successful." https://scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=111692

Theoretical physicists all over the world: "Who cares?"

See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev