Special Relativity has no paradoxes. The “ Twins Paradox ” isn't a paradox. Special Relativity is only for inertial ( i.e. non-accelerating ) _frame_s for reference; the Twins Paradox involves acceleration, so calculus ( e.g. General Relativity ) is required. As for why one observes standard clocks ticking slower when they ( but not the observer ) are accelerated.. The coordinate speed of light ( in the far-distant, human _frame_ ) slows to zero at an event horizon of an ideal black hole because light ( climbing out of the gravity well ) is infinitely redshifted. So, for us humans, an infinite amount of time passes before an SI maser at the event horizon has a chance to move one SI wavelength ( 1 / 30.66 meters; 299,792,458 / 9,192,631,770 ).

You might be the Pope ( in your daydreams ), but I know I'm not infallible.. thank you very much. If you find me acting the idiot ( savant ), I invite your corrections.

A laser has an ultra-tiny 4-D gravitational field, that's an empirical fact. You don't understand it, so you dismiss it, failing to replace it with anything. Your 300 year old Newtonian ideals simply won't do. Jeff:  Where do you get your ideas about science?  Now, light has... gravity?  Stick to computer programming, and social commentary.  

The Twins Paradox isn't a paradox. Special Relativity is only for inertial ( i.e. non-accelerating ) _frame_s for reference; the Twins Paradox involves acceleration, so calculus ( e.g. General Relativity ) is required. As for why one observes standard clocks ticking slower when they ( but not the observer ) are accelerated.. The coordinate speed of light ( in the far-distant, human _frame_ ) slows to zero at an event horizon of an ideal black hole because light ( climbing out of the gravity well ) is infinitely redshifted. So, for us humans, an infinite amount of time passes before an SI maser at the event horizon has a chance to move one SI wavelength ( 1 / 30.66 meters; 299,792,458 / 9,192,631,770 ). Jeff:  There was a time when printed texts were considered outdated by the time the ink was dry.  Technical magazines were more current. Now, changes can be tracked, daily, on the NET.  But you are still using some old Einstein text as the standard for what is what. Trust your own smarts.  My Einstein disproofs are easy enough for middle schoolers to understand.  So, you may be... TOO smart!    

You told me: “ My Einstein disproofs are   easy enough for middle schoolers to understand. ”. Show me a middle schooler who understands your “ disproofs ”. Can you publish in “ Physics Letters A ” ?   How would you model the gravitational field of a laser ? Quoting an Abstract of an article en_title_d: “ Weak gravitational field of   the electromagnetic radiation in a ring laser ” “ The gravitational field due to   the circulating flow of electromagnetic radiation of   a unidirectional ring laser is found by solving   the linearized Einstein field equations at   any interior point of the laser ring.   The general relativistic spin equations are then used   to study the behavior of a massive spinning neutral particle   at the center of the ring laser.   It is found that the particle exhibits the phenomenon known   as inertial _frame_-dragging. ”.  

Understand?  The math is testable - the ontologics aren't.  Your quest to understand Nature by discovering its driving mechanisms, is pie-in-the-sky. So it is wrong (pie-in-the-sky) to conclude that the fact that the tides go in and out has something to do with the fact that a moon orbits the earth? I believe that causality is an essential part of physics.