From: mlfasf@comcast.net   
      
   On 3/29/18 10:20 AM, J.B. Wood wrote:   
   > Hello, everyone.  I continue to be puzzled by a relativity issue:   
   > Initially two persons have two synchronized clocks an are located at the   
   > same point in space.  One person, B, starts moving away from person A at   
   > some velocity.  We tend to view person A as "stationary" wrt person B   
   > and we know that person B's clock runs slower relative to person A's   
   > clock.  But if it's all relative why can't we consider person B as   
   > "stationary" and consider person A in motion?  But wouldn't that mean   
   > that now person A's clock would be running slower relative to B's?  I   
   > know I'm missing some fundamental relativity issue(s) here.  My thanks   
   > to anyone who can clear this up.  Sincerely,   
   >   
      
   When two people are in relative motion at a CONSTANT speed, they will   
   each conclude that the other is ageing more slowly.  But in the twin   
   "paradox", the traveler is accelerating at the turnaround, and so their   
   relative speed isn't constant there.  During that turnaround, the   
   traveler will conclude that the home twin ages by a very large amount,   
   so that at their reunion, the total ageing by the home twin is greater   
   than the traveler's total ageing.  This is described in much more detail   
   here:   
      
      https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)