Thanks to all who sent replies on my relativity question. I have read and reread several of the responses. I particularly liked the phrase "They can pry open your skull and give your brain a cold shower." That is about how I feel when I am trying to wrap my mind around this stuff. Either that, or it is the feeling of my brain whimpering in the corner. It seems like I am still making some mistakes in my basic understanding of relativity, so I need to do some more reading, I guess. Paul Gettings, in particular, gave a very thorough response to my questions. I do not know if it was sent to the whole list or not. I have read his email perhaps 10 times and am still trying to get my mind to digest most of what it said.

From what I have gathered from the various responses, though, is that it sounds like things happen in a specific time-frame (called "proper time" in many sites I have visited), but that different observers see those events as happening at different times from their perspectives. This seems to be based upon when light from the events reaches the viewers, is this correct? This, however, seems to contradict the Wiki article I reference below.

So is it true then, that our estimated age of the universe is the "proper age"? Is it possible that viewers at other spots in the universe would view the age as +/- a billion years or so because, for example, their solar system is careening through space at a speed close to the speed of light relative to the universe or relative to us or something? Or am I still missing some fundamental stuff here? Here is another way of looking at the reasoning behind my question. From the Wiki article on the twin paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox) it says that in special relativity there is no "absolute present". Because different frames of reference have different "simultaneity planes", is it possible (or likely) that an observer from a different solar system would say that the age of the universe is currently different from what we measure? Most of my understanding of relativity has come from many readings of the pages located here: http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_intro.html Since the guy is using relativity in the context of Star Trek, perhaps it is not the best source. :) The things I have the most difficulty with are statements like these (from Paul's email): "Assume two small, bright (emitting) objects are both traveling at .9c away from a common source. To an observer on either object (who is an inertial frame), the other source is receding at .9c, due to space-time dilation. To an observer in an inertial frame outside the objects, both are moving at .9c away from the source. But, the clock running on the objects "appears" to move more slowly to the outside observer. To an observer on the objects, the clock outside "appears" to move faster than theirs on the object." Physics was so much easier before Einstein got involved. :) Thanks, Aaron