"Daryl McCullough" <daryl@cogentex.com> wrote in message
news:9r22lm0286e@drn.newsguy.com...
> "AndroclesInFlorida" says...
>
> >Quote:
> >" If the observer is travelling at velocity 0.99 c relative to B, and B is
> >stationary relative to A,  then the observer is travelling at velocity 0.99c
> >relative to A."
> >Unquote.
>
> Yes, it's a true statement, a trivial fact about velocity vectors.

Can't answer the question about the twin paradox, eh?
Relativist defeated by logic. News at 11:00.
This is what you snipped and cannot face, Daryl.

You really are floundering now, aren't you?
Squirming and twisting, because you've suddenly realized what I am talking about.
Answer the point, to the point. What is the frequency each sees of the distance star at A?
Is it roughly the same as the twins respective clocks, or wildly different for each, when
the twins are separating or closing at 0.99c?
I've got you over a barrel, McCollough, you can wriggle and squirm all you want to,
but your stupidity in listening to the nonsense of relativity, and your arrogance in pretending
you can teach ME anything, is beyond all normal credibility.
Come on, show us what you are made of, answer the question and give us the equation
we need to solve the rate of the variable star as we move past it.
Tell us what Stella (or Sally or Sam or Kip Thorne or Charlie Misner or whatever the current
travelling twins name is) sees by their time dilated clock of the rest of the universe.
I already suggested to you that it wasn't
    t'''' = (t - v.sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)/c^2 /sqrt((c^2-v^2)/c^2),
didn't I?
Then you come back and try to tell be about vector addition of velocities, you cheeky whelp.

Time dilation! phooey! A load of nonsense dreamed up by Einstein because he got
thrilled by H G Well's "Time Machine", and came up with the really silly
idea that the speed of light was independent of the motion of the source,
and gullible no-nothing non-thinking fools like you are too damned arrogant for your own good.