Einstein's Twin Paradox Simplified

I agree with you Clinton. Unless there are absolute velocities, your argument shows that Lorentz-Einstein's time dilation is absurd. The theory of relativity is absurd.
Solution:

http://vixra.org/abs/0910.0033

Another question. Imagine that you start to spin (one revolution per second). From your point of view, you'll see that a body placed at 1 meter covers a circumference of 1 meter radius in a time of 1 second. A body placed at 50,000 meters covers a circumference of 50 000 m radius in a time of 1 second. And so on ad infinitum ... Obvious ...ly there are higher speeds c = 300,000 km / s !!! The theory of relativity is absurd.
Solution: http://vixra.org/abs/1009.0023

Okay, wait a minute. We spin around the center of Earth, Earth spins around the sun, the sun spins around the galaxy, the galaxy is spinning around the local cluster, the local cluster is spinning around what? other local clusters and so on... so... how fast are we actually moving in relation to... some unknown point in the universe and how great is the time dilation?

Any transformation between two observers is a space-time dialogue between two entities A and B about a third entity C. In the 'Galileo Transformation', the third entity C is understood, does not appear in the notation. But the 'Lorentz Transformation' completely ignores the entity C, and this is why the twin paradox.
I would like to introduce some new transformations that preserve the local velocity of light. Also resolve the twin paradox.
Relational Transformation: http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0022

More Information: http://21physics.blogspot.com/p/new-lorentz-transformation.html

Plar, there actually is quite a lot of proof that the speed of light remains constant from all reference points. On famous example would be the Michelson/Morley experiments where the speed of light was measured both parallel and perpendicular to the earth's motion. The experiment was initially designed to disprove the theory that light waves needed a medium to propagate through, but it did still contribute to later experiments in relativity. Among these theories were Einstein's theory of special relativity, as well as time dilation and length contraction.

Don't worry above two posters. I didn't get it either although I studied relativity and physics in college for two years. This video was able to explain the time dilation (which is easily understood if you've taken a class in relativity) but not why it needs an inertial frame to create this effect. This is not a very thorough explanation in my opinion.

Also, it always annoys me that we are making a huge assumption that light travels constant speed in any frame. I wonder where the empirical proof of that is. Or will scientists one day say "oops, we're sorry. it turns out that we were wrong about this!"