Recently I was reading a book called 1001 THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE by JAMES TREFIL when I came across some very intersting information concernig Relativity. I wrote some of it below. 672. The predictions of relativity do not match up with our every day experience. For example, if you stand on a railroad car moving thirty-miles an hour and throw a baseball forward at the speed of twenty miles an hour, you expect that somone on the ground would see the baseball moving at fifty miles an hour-your speed plus that of the railroad car. Suppose instead that you were on that same railroad car and sent the beam of a flashlight in the forward direction. You would see the speed as being 186,000 miles per second. Someone one the ground, however,would also have to see the speed of light as 186,000 miles per second-not 186,000 miles per second plus thirty miles an hour-if the principle of relativity is to be right. If the person on the ground saw a different speed from you, then Maxwell's eequations wouldn't be the same for both observers and the principle of relativity would be wrong. It is only because relativity is so well verified experimentally that physisicists are now willing to accept this sort of strange proposition. 674.The twin parodox isn't really a paradox. This paradox arises becuase, according to relativity, if one of two identical twins spent his life in a rocketship traveling near the speed of light, when he comes back to earth, he will be younger than his sibling. Today we know that the twin Paradox is a real effect(see the following). In other words, it shouldn't be called the "twin paradox" but the "twin effect." 675.The slowing down of moving clocks can be tested experimentally. In the 1960s a group of scientist at the university of Michigan put atomic clocks on airplanes that were flying around the world(it was Pan American flight #1, if you must know). After the clocks completed their journey, they were compared to identical clocks that had been left in the laboratory. The result: the moving clocks had in fact, ticked fewer times than the stationary ones. Of course, these are clocks that can measure time to an accuracy of thirteen decimal places, not your standard wrist watch, but they establish the principle that time is relative. I don't know about you but this stuff has got my brains tide in knots. let me know what you think.