If no consistent notion of simultaneity exists, why use the idea at all? Where’s the value in relative simultaneity?

Shouldn’t a meaningful theory be based on absolutes? — or at least geometrical invariants, i.e., mathematical quantities that will always give you the same answer no matter what coordinate system you are using.

I believe that the best answer to the pole and barn paradox is “Don’t ask me this question. Forget about it. All physics is local. It doesn’t even make sense to synchronize spatially separated clocks.” Why should anyone think that this riddle requires careful analysis?

The twin paradox is based on the ambiguous phrase, “moving clocks run slow.” Why do physicists even tolerate this self-riddled confusion-producing phrase? Where’s the merit or intelligence in physicists insisting that simultaneity is relative and then using terminology that suggests that absolute synchronization exists?

For ALL these years, you've never come to accept the beautiful Divine Design we know as RELATIVITY !! ?? I AM shocked! You won't see The Supreme Creator's *brilliant* Design in that, His simple scheme to make life fair for all who inhabit the Cosmos, whether they be local or distant?? I'm dismayed with you. Open your eyes.

Relativity guarantees that every being everywhere will live in "a basal world of supreme stature, owing deference to no greater realm". You really MUST read my mercifully brief web site on relativity. A good starting point is this here one-page exoneration of the wonderful masterful schema http://placido.u21.0web-hosting.com/kavs/kjs/briefingetr.html. On the last sentence there's a link to a fuller treatise. See especially section entitled "Relativity in a Nutshell" and Addendum IV, Twin Paradox Resolved Without Accelerations. It's all good. It's right as rain, without a doubt, as you'll definitely see.

BTW: the ambiguous phrase, “moving clocks run slow”, is not the meaningful verbiage, and it's not what physicists claim.

If you google for the phrase "moving clocks run slow", you'' find about 2,660 hits. For just one example of that nonsensical phrase being used by a physicist, consider what Michael Fowler teaches at the University of Virginia. See his webpage.

Precision diction is needed to impart the Truth about Relativity. So many fall short -- so what? It doesn't alter the fact that the nearly-perfect diction is found on my cited 1-pager and the 14-page fuller treatise thereby linked. So get convinced ...read it