I'll be up and watching...love the book and you too!

You made a TINY error in describing riding on a beam of light away from a clock. You ended your remarks by saying that time would stand still for those at the clock, which is not the case. Time dilates for the traveler, not for those who remain within the CS. Review the tape; it's the "Twin Paradox."

Einstein's global celebrity came when his light bending theory was proven by the 1919 eclipse. Few outside of science had a clue as to what it all meant, but they KNEW it and he were special.

His first papers (1905), in five parts, included the famous E=mc², and were the result of MUCH practical lab work and were titled The Special Theory. His final significant papers, in 1915, were titled The General Theory, and were somewhat held up for his lack of a powerful enough math. He then discovered Reimann's Tensor Calculus and Field Equations and went into seclusion for 3 to 6 weeks, depending on whom you read, and emerged with the universe in his hands. The proof(s) had to wait for the war to end. It was Eddington, as I recall, who said "They (his theories) are the single greatest pronouncements of thought in human history." They are still bedrock! Art Haykin Bend, Oregon

Thanks for watching the show this morning, and taking the time to drop me a note. . .

Two responses to your comment:

First of all, I realized myself in watching our talk that I didn't give a good preamble to describe how rock solid most of Einstein's theories are. I think the man was brilliant, and in so many ways he was prescient. His creativity and ability to turn the science of his day on its head was wonderful.

So I say here for everyone: while I gave examples in which Einstein's fame makes us focus on certain aspects of his science simply because he was an icon -- as opposed to how good those papers were -- those examples are but small aspects of Einstein's greater legacy.

Second -- as for the beam of light example -- I didn't make a mistake, though I understand your point. You clearly know your science well, so I'm assuming this is stuff you've studied -- but I was describing a slightly different example than the twin paradox (which requires that the second twin return home. . . as I describe below) and I'll explain why.

Thank you very much, however, for pointing out the actual PARADOX behind the twin paradox! My answer on the show today was of course a very quick one, but to explain further: Einstein's equations do not say that time dilates for you, EVER, since of course in your reference frame you are standing still -- it's the clock that is moving away from you for which time slows down.

If you rode on that beam of light forever and ever, you would age normally as far as you were concerned, and the people left at the clock would never age. If, however, you turned around and went back to the clock, when you arrived home you would discover that you would have aged more slowly -- time would have gone more slowly -- while the people back at the clock would now be older than you.

THAT'S the paradox. Why, if the point of Einstein's relativity equations is that no reference frame is any better than any other, why would one of you age and not the other? The answer lies in the turning around -- in turning around, the person riding the beam of light goes through an acceleration that the person back at the clock does not.

So, yes, in the classic twin paradox situation the person who went away and comes back experiences less time, or slower time, than the person back home. But I wasn't describing the twin paradox -- only a person riding a beam of light in a straight line. And in that case, it is always the OTHER guy for whom time slows.

A Fairly simple version that emphasizes what happens while the twins are simply moving away from each other is described here: The Twin Paradox