Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site jhunix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_apmj
From: ins_apmj@jhunix.UUCP (Patrick M Juola)
Newsgroups: net.physics,net.research
Subject: Re: Newman's Machine (brief)
Message-ID: <1077@jhunix.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 10:22:21 EST
Article-I.D.: jhunix.1077
Posted: Thu Oct 31 10:22:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 07:47:18 EST
Reply-To: ins_apmj@jhunix.ARPA (Patrick M Juola)
Distribution: na
Organization: Johns Hopkins Univ. Computing Ctr.
Lines: 18
Keywords: Relativity, paradox
Xref: watmath net.physics:3465 net.research:311
Summary: A dumb physics question


	This ought to take some physics major about ten seconds to bat out a
reply, but I'm a math major and really confused about this problem -- 
To wit :

	It's fairly common knowlege that if I were to get into a space ship
and go away at close to the speed of light then come back, I would age less
than my girlfriend whom I left back on Earth.  Anyone who's watched Cosmos
knows that much.  However, why am I the one who ages?  If motion is relative 
and my ship is an inertial reference frame, why can't I assume that the earth
is going away from me at close to the speed of light, and that my girlfriend 
would therefore be aging more slowly than I would?  

	Send replies by E-mail; no need to clutter up the net with ten thousand
copies of the same flaw in my reasoning.  Thanks in advance.
						Pat Juola
						Johns Hopkins Univ.
						Dept. of Maths