> > I leave it as an exercise to the reader to
>>find the apparent paradox in that statement with
>>respect to time dilation ;-)
>
> The paradox is that there is a difference
>between a spaceship moving away from a planet at
>.15c and a planet moving away from a spaceship at
>.15c, namely that either way, the spaceship is
>the one that will experience a "speed up" of
>time. Relativists call this a paradox. I, in my
>gleefully presumptuous mind, call this evidence
>that disproves the theory. I think relativity is
>a lot like Newtonian physics -- it's applicable
>for a majority of calculations that we need to
>make but does not fully or accurately describe
>the universe.

You may be right about Relativity being like Newtonian physics in it's incompleteness, but the Twins Paradox is not an example of that. Both Special and General Relativity have an answer for this apparent paradox.

Short answer: The spaceship's frame of reference is *not* inertial, as it must undergo an acceleration during the journey. SR only postulates the equivalence of *inertial* reference frames.

Long anser: Ugh. I won't pretend to fully understand it myself. It requires charts, graphs, and calculus. If you really *must* know, I offer the attached URL for your erudition. In fact, I strongly urge anyone with the inclination to check it out--the words that surround the formulas are actually intelligable ;-)