From: sylvia@email.invalid   
      
   On 24/06/2019 5:15 am, rockbrentwood@gmail.com wrote:   
   > A lot of folklore (mostly false or misleading) has accrued around this   
   > issue -- even folklore passed on in texts and by physicists, themselves.   
   > The matter should be set straight; particularly (1) regarding the (in   
   > retrospect: obvious) connection of the twin paradox time deficit to the   
   > action principle and (2) the preeminent role that acceleration plays in   
   > the matter.   
      
   [Moderator's note: Quoted text deleted. -P.H.]   
      
   > Therefore, when it comes to the twin paradox, acceleration is not ONLY   
   > the one thing that matters here, it is the ONLY thing that matters or   
   > counts! Everything else is a red herring and is therefore irrelevant.   
   >   
      
   Yet if we perform an experiment that doesn't accelerate anything, but   
   instead transfers clock readings between observers travelling in   
   different directions, we still get a "twin paradox" style result.   
      
   That rather suggests that the acceleration has no special role here. If   
   you want a particular twin to go outwards, and then return, then clearly   
   that twin will need to be accelerated, but that doesn't mean that   
   acceleration causes the relativistic result.   
      
   Sylvia.   
      
   [Moderator's note: I'm not sure it this is what is meant, but if this   
   refers to each twin seeing the other ageing more slowly, then this is a   
   different case because it is symmetric.  -P.H.]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)