Only the fast moving twin experiences time slowdown. That is why there is no paradox.
The fast moving twin would always see the stay at home twins clock going fast. You cannot have both clock"s going slower than the other.
Relativistic effects are not reciprocal. The application of the reciprocity of relativistic effects is the problem.
On 14-Feb-2007 by chaunce
Uhhhh... what? In relation to distant stars? Sounds like the sort of ad hoc b.s. an engineer would come up with. I obviously haven't read his paper, but it sounds ignorant to me, mostly for the reason that there is no paradox, in that the assymetry created by the fact that only one twin undergoes an acceleration resolves this "paradox."
On 14-Feb-2007 by tcamps
As Chaunce said, the resolution of the "paradox" lies in the fact that you can't compare the amount of time that's passed for each of them unless you bring them both to rest in the same inertial reference frame. So one or both of them needs to be accelerated, violating the "special" part of special relativity.
Someone's b.s.-ing it--either the professor, or the reporter.
On 14-Feb-2007 by Indurance
The way I understood it was that since no state of motion is unique or can be considered "real" you could say that the earthbound twin was accelerating away from the traveling one. The non constant bit which resolves the problem is when the space traveling twin turns around to return - different frame of reference. As as been said there is no "paradox" here it is explained by the theory. I'm no expert, but I thought I'd grasped that much at least.
On 14-Feb-2007 by Nick
The paradox only exists if you insist on ascribing motion to things that have not actually accelerated. Only the twin moving fast through space will experience the transverse Doppler effect or the time slowdown.
You simply cannot have both clocks going slower than one another. The fast moving twin will always have the slower clock and the stay at home the faster (clock.)
mumble mumble curse words...
