xyzt

I already corrected your multiple, oft-repeated, misconceptions. Repeatedly. The fact that you do not understand what they are is your problem.

Well, you will need to take back your gratuitous negative feedbacks first.Like I said earlier, SR handles accelerated motion.

This is, of course false. An external observer will measure the clock frequency to be larger than 2hz when the clock approaches and less than 2hz when the clock moves away. This is basic Doppler effect. Feel free to continue your practice of giving me negative feedback for correcting your glaring mistakes. This is just as false as the rest of your posts. [math]t'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)[/math] so: [math]dt'=\gamma(dt-vdx/c^2)[/math] The above shows that the sign of [math]dt'[/math] may be : -the same or -opposite the sign of [math]dt[/math] depending on : -[math]dt>vdx/c^2[/math] -[math]dt<vdx/c^2[/math]

The fact that you don't understand the answers doesn't mean that they do not explain your misunderstandings.

Giving me negative feedbacks like a coward will not change anything. The reason the twin that turns around accumulates less time is the faCt that while he turns around the other twin accumulates extra time.

No, they don't, the situation is STILL asymmetric, one twin changed direction, the other one didn't. You don't seem to want to learn.

No, you do not need GR, SR handles accelerated motion just fine. You only need to learn to make the distinction between the twins. So far, you haven't.

Electron does not "approach from the center". You cannot make up sh!t and throw it around trying to see if it sticks to the wall.

But their motion is not symmetric, one is accelerated, the other one is not. You need to learn to make the distinction.

i cannot teach you basic mechanics. based on your posts, no one can.

basic mechanics says that the above is wrong.

the correct definition provides the correlation between aminosynthesis and the incertitude principle as applied to the chairs gravitating around the mad hatter tea table in alice in wonderland.

yes, but they have different x coordinates. so, according to sr, they will be synchronized only in the frame of the train. in all other frames, they will not.

this is a DIFFERENT issue, it was explained to you that , in relativity, simultaneity is frame dependent

the word salad mediates the relationship between the cyclotron radius and the height of the foot of the dinner table.

if a light signal is sent from the back of the train to the front , in the direction of travel, it will be detected as redshifted because it was sent when the source was traveling at speed [math]v[/math] and it was detected when the receiver was traveling at speed [math]v'>v[/math] AWAY from the signal wavefront. conversely, if a light signal is sent from the front of the train to the back , against the direction of travel, it will be detected as blueshifted because it was sent when the source was traveling at speed [math]v[/math] and it was detected when the receiver was traveling at speed [math]v'>v[/math] TOWARDS from the signal wavefront. THIS IS WHY

i read what you posted: it is pure nonsense

i don't think you are trying to learn anything, you are simply posting gobbly-gook, you are just stringing buzzwords.

bs

yet,mainstream physics shows the above to be total rubbish

Here is another way of showing that there is no paradox: 1. Using the Equivalence Principle, we can consider that the hovering observer is accelerating AWAY from the Earth, someplace far away in space, where there is no gravitating body. This observer measures a non-null proper acceleration and also measures the other observer accelerating past him TOWARDS the Earth (the acceleration he measures is coordinate acceleration) 2. The freefalling observer measures a null proper acceleration for himself and a non-null coordinate acceleration for the other observer (moving AWAY from the Earth). No paradox.

He gave you the same answer I gave you relative to co-mingling of proper and coordinate acceleration: "No, they're not, because the word "acceleration" has two different meanings, and #3/#4 use one meaning while #5 uses the other. The first meaning (used in #3/#4) is called "coordinate acceleration" in relativity--it means a change in speed relative to some system of coordinates. The second meaning (used in #5) is called "proper acceleration" in relativity--it means what is measured by an (ideal) accelerometer. As should be evident from my discussion of #5 above, these two concepts are different and there is no necessary correlation between them even in Newtonian physics. So you can't derive #5 from #3/#4 in Newtonian physics" In essence , the same answer I gave you earlier in the thread. Sure, he took the time to correct your other misconceptions, I only addressed your final question.

Have you considered studying instead of making up stuff? Fringe stuff, I mean.

What the two observers measure about themselves is PROPER acceleration. What the two observers measure about each other is COORDINATE acceleration. Coordinate acceleration is DIFFERENT from proper acceleration.

Nah, I have a collection of Swiss chronometers (Longines,Omega, IWC, Patek Philippe) dating back to the mid-1800's that one can use