It seems to me that all of the talk about "absolute" acceleration is a complete non-issue, in terms of relativistic effects. For, if there is no such thing as absolute position, then there can be no such thing as absolute change in position, whether this change is understood in the sense of uniformity (non-accelerated) or non-uniformity (i.e. accelerated). As far as relativity is concerned, then, isn't there always complete symmetricity as far as relatively moving observers are concerned, no matter the uniformity of this motion? I always see references to g-forces being the determining factor as far as who is "truly" accelerating. But isn't this the precise reason why Einstein always used such things as "practically rigid rods" and "ideal clocks" in his thought experiments? In other words, things that are "practically rigid" or "ideal" are, by definition, impervious to the stresses caused by external forces, are they not? It seems that people who invoke such things as the "twin paradox" are overlooking these essential considerations of Einstein. But my real confusion arises when I see that wikipedia (in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox) attributes this same kind of fallacious thinking about absolute acceleration to Einstein himself! So what's the deal? Is wikipedia lying? Or did Einstein really contradict his earlier work in his later years? Or am I just totally nuts?