<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kc3mx</i>
<br />I was wondering where I can find the paper being disputed?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The Twins paper? That can be found at [url]
www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep6/ep6-vanfl.htm
[/url].
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also I thought I saw mentioned that this was explained in a Meta Reasearch Bulletin. Is this available?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The last article mentioned was the one on Lorentz contraction, which appeared in the 2003 Sept. 15 issue. New subscribers will still get that as a starting issue until after December 1. Visit our web store for subscription information: [url]
metaresearch.org/store/advanced/default.asp
[/url]
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My view on this twins paradox is that you need to define what you mean by time or aging.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Of course. But in SR, it is not clocks that slow, but time itself. And even in LR, the slowing applies to all physical processes including the time it takes electrons to complete their atomic orbitals. If all physical processes slow, why would biological processes be exempt? Think of it as a sort of hibernation or suspended animation. -|Tom|-
