"harald" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... On Jul 4, 2:12 pm, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote: > harald says... > > >On Jul 3, 4:10=A0pm, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > >> I'm not sure what paradox you are referring to, then. > >I did some digging to understand the main cause of confusion. What I > >found, is the clock paradox started out as the one that Einstein was > >confronted with, as criticism of his GRT. At least, concerning SRT, > >before the development of GRT, I found no trace of such a paradox in > >the old literature. Did you? > > 1905 paper has the first exposition of the twins paradox (though not > in the currently frames words) .. of a pair of clocks at rest, then > one moves away and returns and shows a shorter elapsed time > > No GR involved there.
No paradox there either.
> Or are you talking now of some other paradox?
Einstein explained how a paradox arose with the inception of GRT:
"Relativist: There are several reasons that compel us to willingly accept the complications that the theory leads us to. In the first place, it means for a man who maintains consistency of thought a great satisfaction to see that the concept of absolute motion, to which kinematically no meaning can be attributed, does not have to enter physics"
Absolute motion: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c " -- Einstein.
Einstein's strawman argument doesn't give any "explanation" at all, no matter how much you wave your hands and wag your tongue, shithead.