Einstein Was Wrong

I appreciate the effort my opponent has put into his response, but I guarantee that nobody, not even himself, can make sense of what he just said. Let me demonstrate one of the biggest fallacies of his self-contradictory, convoluted argument.He begins by quoting this from my source:"The naive interpretation--the reason why the situation is called a paradox--is to assume that the situation is completely symmetrical[...] As this assumption is false, there is no paradox."He brags that this debate is already over, that this statement refutes my case because the situation is not symmetrical. But then he concludes by saying:"Now, why is there no paradox? Imagine two motorbikes passing each other. Each driver hears his own engine as a steady sound. Another bike approaches, making a higher-pitched engine sound, but as it passes, the sound becomes ever deeper. AND BOTH EXPERIENCE THE EXACT SAME THING!"Note that this situation is completely symmetrical. My opponent has made it clear that both motorbikes are passing each other at the same speed. So my opponent first argues there is no paradox because the situation is not symmetrical, but then ends up arguing there is no paradox because, lo and behold, it actually is symmetrical.That's absurd. You can't have your cake and eat it to.By the way, for those who didn't catch on, symmetry is the sameness or reciprocity of things (hope that makes sense). Let me try to explain.If I say that the space-twin is blasting off into space but the earth-twin is standing still, that's not symmetrical, since both twins aren't doing the same thing. But in the motor-bike analogy that Con presented, he said they are passing each other, apparently at the same speed. That makes the motor-bike analogy symmetrical. This means it's a false analogy.Now, my opponent says Special Relativity says movement causes things to appear to age slower, but they don't actually age slower. This is completely wrong. Special Relativity indeed says that motion causes time to slow.(2)Let's tackle this paradox from a different angle to make things clearer. Space-twin blasts off into space and makes a round trip about the earth, ending up back where he started. Earth-twin just stands there. Earth-twin is aging normally since he's not moving at all, while space-twin is aging slower. So when space-twin completes his trip, earth-twin is older than him. Let's say earth-twin is twice as old as space-twin.Alright, space-twin is twice as young as earth-twin. No problem for Special Relativity, right? WRONG. The entire scenario I just described assumed that Earth was motionless, because that's the only way to claim that earth-twin is standing still. What if it was actually the earth that made a revolution around the space-twin, with earth-twin standing on it? That would mean it was actually earth-twin that moved, and aged slower, which would mean it was actually earth-twin that is younger than space-twin.So there's a problem. How do we know which really occured? After all, we must identify which twin actually moved before we can say which is younger. If earth-twin remained still on the motionless earth while space-twin moved around it in a circle, than we're back to the Medieval Ages.If space-twin remained still while the earth (with earth-twin standing on it) moved in a circle around him, than space-twin is motionless and the earth orbits him.We cannot say both are equally true because "it's all relative" or something like that. ONLY ONE CAN BE TRUE. For if both are true, than both twins are younger than each other.And that's impossible.Good luck Con.(2) http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...