... these was and is important to me personally because it stimulated a small epiphany with the answer. It is actually this answer under test. The Twin Paradox came up indirectly from another thread link. The second seems silly and boring but maybe it holds a worthwhile discussion. As far as Albert's...

Special Relativity has no paradoxes. The “ Twins Paradox ” isn't a paradox. Special Relativity is only for inertial ( i.e. non-accelerating ) frames for reference; the Twins Paradox involves acceleration, so calculus ( e.g. General Relativity ) is required. As for why one observes standard clocks ticking slower when they ( but ...

... years apart at the beginning? Sure. The clocks would be synchronized to a third clock equidistant from the two. Perhaps you should think about what Art said---that we can think of it as one twin was traveling to the future. Or not. The point is that there are a number of metaphorical ways of describing the case, and your own interpretation is just one of them. Where we (I) get ...

...any fundamental meaning, but that's a entirely different thing from what we're discussing here, which is special relativity in physics. Incidentally, I suppose you know that it's not a paradox. The term "paradox" was used early last century by those hoping to poke holes in special relativity. However, all measurements have so far have supported the theory. What's just as weird is the ...

... enlightening BOfL I came across this page. http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html If anyone could please point out the error in the following, I would appreciate it. You might like this: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Twin _paradox An example from the site: Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal). ...

... across this page. http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html If anyone could please point out the error in the following, I would appreciate it. The paradox begins with twins, named Unprime and Prime, at a train station, each of their watches reading the same time. One of the twins leaves the station so the rest of it has to do with ...

... I came across this page. http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html If anyone could please point out the error in the following, I would appreciate it. The paradox begins with twins, named Unprime and Prime, at a train station, each of their watches reading the same time. One of the twins leaves the station so the rest of it has to do with the ...

On Sep 2, 9:35 am, ZerkonX <Z...@X.net> wrote: On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:33:25 -0700, tg wrote: The point is that there are a number of metaphorical ways of describing the case, and your own interpretation is just one of them. Where we (I) get confused is in trying to shoehorn a particular case into a particular model/interpretation/simile/intuition/whatever. Yes, agree....

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:33:25 -0700, tg wrote: The point is that there are a number of metaphorical ways of describing the case, and your own interpretation is just one of them. Where we (I) get confused is in trying to shoehorn a particular case into a particular model/interpretation/simile/intuition/whatever. Yes, agree. These analogies are given to illuminate. I just take it ...

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:39:57 -0400, Art wrote: I am saying how the watches are set is not how the watches are seen to be. The length of time needed for light to reach the eye of the observer would seem to rule out any possibility of 'clock zero' being in the same instant as 'seen zero' And I pointed out that such a consideration is so miniscule compared to the time...