JohnLesser

Can you read? ''you'' in quotation does not mean you.

How rude, you are trolling a good thread and trying to ruin it. ''you'' are insisting both twins always occupy the present, i.e synchronous in time Contradictory to a time dilation. I am not sure most of you understand SR.

You mostly are telling me there is no time dilation, huh...... That is what they are saying.

Maybe you are missing something. I will try to explain to you by using a calendar. Twin 1 ground state marks 1 day every 24 hrs of time elapsed. Twin 2 in motion with a slower rate of time marks one day every 24 hrs elapsed. Twin two marks 1 day, later than twin one. Twin ones days are shorter than twin 2's days.

So time does not really slow down? Again contradiction

Quite clearly you are being contradictory, in one breath saying that time slows down then in another breath saying it does not. If time was passing slower for me, I would be still in 2016 for example.

Oh , I understand, to arrive at the same time their journey time would have to be synchronous, the curved vector travelled needing more speed to compensate for extra distance to retain synchronisation. I hardly ''see'' how that is relevant though.

So then you agree twin 2 ''drifts'' into the past? I wish you would please stop being contradictory.

So you are saying time does not slow down. A short time line can not be synchronous to a greater length. If they both remained in the present then you will have to define absolute time?

With due respect you are not thinking about what you are writing and saying. time passes slowly , so the clock will show a lesser time than the ground state clock. Are you saying if the clock showed a shorter length of time it would still be in the present?

Sound has to travel, there is a delay .

Time is a measurement, I am not sure we experience time but rather observe the affects of it.

So if one experiences less time then most certainly they are behind in time. 11.55am is not noon, it would be in the past relative to twin 1.

It certainly sounds to me like you are saying absolute time exists and time dilation is made up?

The opp claimed it was ageing that slowed, not time.

So you are saying time does not slow down? The ground state clock is the absolute time relative to the inertia reference frame. The ground state clock is constant.

I understand simultaneity. The twins start in locality of each other, both having the same rate of time which is simultaneous for both twins. When twin departs he experiences time slowing down relative to twin one. When twin one's time measures noon, twin two's time shows less than noon ,twin 2 is effectively then behind in time relative to twin 1. I maybe read with ambiguity.

Your age is equal to the measurement of time passed and nothing to do with the discussion.

Relativity is not difficult to understand. This is more SR.

Age is measured by a clock.

So therefore the clock in motion is behind in time relative to the ground state clock?

You said I would not be able to explain relativity, for that to be true I would have to not be able to read all the free information on the net.

Then if my ground state clock reads noon, the slower clock reads less than noon ? The clock time question!

I am not mangling anything, Twin 1 and twin 2 at ground state observe a distant star in it's past? Are you suggesting I can not read?

So you ignore the question and deny relativity?