Corkscrew causality LONG

> So I'm not saying it's wrong,
> I'm just saying I don't quite get it. Maybe I can't.

Relativity is a little trickier than Newtonian space-time, but there are
ways to understand it better.

Start with a Newtonian graph of space-time: The Y-axis is Time and the
X-axis is Space.

As a person in this model wiggles left and right, they leave a diagonal
series of segments traveling up (forward) with time.

With Relativity, this chart changes axes in proportion to the person's
speed: Their frame of inertia tilts Space upward in Time toward the
direction of motion, and to an equal angle tilts the axis of Time
forward in space. (At least, the angles are equal if they are scaled
based on the speed of light, so that an object moving the speed of light
is shown as a 45 degree line, in an inertial frame where the tilt of
time and tilt of space meet.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

Maybe there is 'an average' where most of the Universe is resting on the
surface of an ocean, and only speeding objects are riding the wake of
waves slanting more upward the faster they move. But every object
approaching 'the perfect wave' will observe their local frame as the
standard for 'level,' and the rest of space-time

It's most interesting to take this on thought experiments like the Twins
Paradox. For good measure, I usually add a third stop just to improve
my objectivity, and to answer my questions about whether this is just an
effect that "snaps back" when returning to Earth... or a real phenomenon
that defies Newtonian thought.

Starting from Earth as Planet A, we chart a course from A to B to C back
to A. Let's also space then all 4 light-years apart in an equilateral
triangle. If you're going half the speed of light, it's hard to refute
what your senses are observing during the first leg: The TV shows from
planet A are half their usual speed, and upon arriving at planet B,
you've only been able to view 4 years of homeworld programs during your
8 expected years of travel. ('Expected years' by Newtonian laws... but
when correctly calculated Lorentz tranformation, your forward motion
suggests the space is compressed to 3 light years instead of four.) Yet
during that same travel time, new shows from planet B are received
doubletime, airing 12 years of programs in the 8 expected or 6 perceived
years of travel.

Since the journey repeats this effect from B to C and C to A, it's hard
to refute what your observations tell you: You've traveled three sides
of a triangle, each leg of which felt like 6 years, for a total of 18
years kept on your video diary. Watching shows only from approaching
planets, you've seen 36 hours of shows... but watching shows only from
receding planets, you've watched only 12 years of shows. So you get
back to Earth 18 years older. How much time has transpired on Earth
while you've been traveling 0.5c relative to the inertial frames of
these planets? Twenty four years, if I've used my Lorentz transforms
correctly. Yeah, that matches the Newtonian model of 8 years per leg,
because the planets share an inertial frame holding relative positions.

So as you rush at the world, it rushes at you too. And the space between
you seems dilated thanks to your different inertial frames adding more
kinetic energy potentials. Orbital and space-faring craft seem to
confirm this, although it's much easier for us to observe gravity
(General Relativity) than near-light-speeds (Special Relativity).

- Twisty