John Norton: The figure shows the bare essentials of the moving clock and all the other clocks spread out along the platform. [...] In short, the moving clock is found to have slowed. It runs at half the speed of the clocks at rest on the platform:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...y/Clocks_1.png

John Norton's site: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html

In Norton's scenario, the single clock is "moving" and the many clocks spread out along the platform are "at rest". Norton correctly concludes that, according to special relativity,

"the MOVING clock is found to have slowed".

However, if the single clock is at rest and the many clocks spread out along the platform are moving past it, Norton will have to conclude that, according to special relativity,

the clock AT REST is found to have slowed.

So if the many clocks spread out along the platform move along some closed polygonal line and so repeatedly meet the single clock at rest, one comes to the conclusion that, according to special relativity, the clock at rest lags behind moving clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the twin at rest remains younger than his traveling brother.

The twin paradox is actually an absurdity - the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev