Simple Question about Special Relativity

I posted this to the other thread just now:

I think I may be starting to get just a glimmer of understanding on this question. My problem has been in a way of thinking that is too "caught up with" concepts of before and after, older and younger....and thinking of time in a temporal manner rather than a spatial one.

At the beginning of the experiment, Betty and Alice are coincident in space-time, although they are in different inertial frames.

Thereafter, they are heading in different directions in 4 dimensional space-time. Significant to the question, the time components of their vectors through space-time are not the same.

If we were to ask which of two physical objects was spatially before the other in space, we would ask the question "From which direction?" That's because they both can be said to be "before" or "after" the other depending on which side of the two that you are on when you are looking and judging before, and after.

Once we consider the same notion from a temporal point of view, that question kind of gets lost. I think that in order to answer my own question that I must consider a complete journey through space-time for each with some well-defined starting and ending points, and then ask the question: "With regards to the time-domain of each journey, which one followed the longer path?"

Steve you are experiencing the same sort of thought-conflict I have harbored for decades tho you express it far more intelligently. Yet in spite of expert denials I detect a persistent uncomfortable feeling that a Paradox still lurks in the dim background

This morn I hope to deliver on my promise of an alternate theory. However my Better Half, who is by the way far better, has reminded me repeatedly tht my chores suffer from my long bouts on a2k. But I promise, anyhow, it'll be tomorrow

...or at least next week for sure

Meeanwhile if you're at all eager I guess you could search 'dalehileman relativity intuition' or sumthin' like; but don't feel obligated as so far nobody agrees in the slightest

Yea, yes, sure Oli, and it's my own theory of relative relativity that not only resolves the Paradox but explains in terms friendly to the intuition, all those peculiar changes apparently suffered by the moving object

Now, if only at 86 my mem wasn't suffering so and the Search weren't such a tedious process....

Aha!! thank you Gung, his might be just like, or a variation of, mine. I'll be disappointed tho, if his was first

I promise to search and deliver but my BH is beckoning....

Yeah, that's just not correct gungasnake. I'm not going to get into it with you, but you are wrong and it's probably best that you just leave the science stuff to the science people. I'd hate to see your brand of science being taught to anyone.

Okay Mac but how about mine

If you're really curious try Search for 'dalehileman relativity,' 'dale alternate theory,' dalehileman Einstein,' 'hileman intuition relativity," etc etc etc

...tho wouldn't blame you if you didn't. I promise to do so eventually but yardwork calls....

I like the idea of you relating a theory of relative relativity. You have it described in a format relatively easy to relay, and in a place relatively simple to locate relative to our present (and relativist) spacetime?

Thank you Oli for responding; indeed I have entered 'Oli' on my Good Guys list

Coincidentally I just responded to a query in one of these 'relativity' chats describing my reluctance to conduct a search. Every time I think I have it nailed Google somehow frustrates me

But I will eventually unearth of few of them very incompetently attempting an explanation of my 'relative relativity.' In brief, I provide a more nearly Newtonian version with--God help me--the speed of light also being relative

tsk. C is a constant for a reason...

which is?...

Of course Mac, I understand why it's supposed to be a constant, and I don't deny Einstein. I only provide an alternative expl more comfortable to the Intuition. I've been advised that I'm f of s but nobody has yet provided much of a rebuttal