pzkpfw

You may be looking for: from the equivalence principle, clocks at the tip and base of an accelerating rocket will measure different times.

I'd add: learning latex would be a good start. In the photo of math, it's not all oriented the same way as the forum, and being a photo is impossible to properly quote, or dissect for discussion. Nobody is being paid to review your posts, if you want feedback you need to make the interest high and the effort low. I will say your handwriting is very good.

Are you claiming the acceleration is a direct cause of the differential aging in the twins' paradox?

Oh sure, I actually agree here, I did note 'I personally go with "there is none"'. But it's like "proving a negative", hard to be absolute. (Back when I was busy (ha!) dropping out of University I went to exactly 1 philosophy lecture, and this was the topic.)

Lack of proof there is a god of some kind, isn't proof that this god doesn't exist. There are also plenty of reasons why reasonable people find comfort in some kind of belief, including upbringing (indoctrination?) and nervousness at the unknown. Not that I'm agnostic, I personally go with "there is none", but I think it's a bit too strong to say "delusion". It did sell some books, though. (dimreepr, is the incorrect "you're" in your signature ironic?)

No, because your math is gibberish. Yes. And you don't even need math to see it. You are missing the point. Top half of image: In the rest frame of the light clock (i.e. anything at rest with it: in the same train - in your unattributed image) the pulse of light is bouncing between A and B, travelling L back and forth. This is not about seeing the pulse of light, it's just doing what the pulse is doing. Bottom half of image: Considered from a different inertial frame, one where the train and the light clock are moving from left to right, the pulse of light makes a different path, travelling D back and forth. D is longer than L. But the speed of light was earlier shown to be invariant. For the same pulses of light to travel from A to B at the same speed, over different distances: it must be that time is relative.

Where it would be, is non-flat space. Edit: snap

Did they pay you, or did you pay them? Who reviewed it?

(For what it's worth, in English I've only ever heard "nickname", not "nick". YMMV.)

That's also how you ended your last thread on this topic. Nobody is disturbed. I remember many many years ago at school, sitting on the step of a building watching someone about 150m away bouncing a basketball on the footpath. Thanks to the brick wall of the building they were outside, I was also hearing the ball hit the concrete. They stopped bouncing the ball. And I heard one more bounce. Slightly jarring at first. The distance was such that (like watching a movie where they sync up visuals and sound and ignore reality) I was seeing and hearing the bounce at the "same time", but of course the sound of each bounce was getting to me later than the sight. None of this is new.

Did the Universe exist before brains?

I don't know about that, but if we treat 55 and 145 as lengths in metres, you could fit 450 average bananas between them.

Do authors pay to be published by them?

Web forums are more dangerous than the printed word, I'd say.

Nothing that big would have stayed secret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies