[MikeFontenot (OP)]

In my paper,

 "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, December 1999, p629

I gave a proof that (in regards to the well-known twin "paradox"), the current age of the home twin (she), according to the traveler (he), as given by the CADO reference frame (which is completely equivalent to the better-known "co-moving inertial frames montage"), AGREES with what he can determine himself, using ONLY his own elementary observations, combined with his own elementary calculations. I first show how the traveler could do that if he were perpetually inertial. Then, I show how he can do that during his unaccelerated inertial periods. And finally I prove (by using a "counter-factual" argument, combined with a causality argument) that the same result holds even during each instant of his accelerating periods. IF my proof is valid, then it is NOT true, as is commonly believed, that simultaneity conventions are arbitrary and meaningless: there is only ONE valid definition of simultaneity, and simultaneity IS meaningful and "real". All of this is discussed in Section 10 of my webpage,

  https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame

and to a greater extent (and more rigorously) in my paper.

So is my proof valid? No one has ever contacted me (in the 20 years since that paper was published) and told me that they had found a flaw in my proof. And several times over the years, I have looked again carefully at my proof, and I have never spotted an error in it. If anyone reading this believes they have found an error in my proof, I would like to hear from them. Email me at PhysicsFiddler@gmail.com.

___________

 Michael L. Fontenot

[Halc]

Sounds like a candidate for the new-theory section of this forum.

I didn't read the paper.  Post the relevant parts of the 'proof' here.  I don't click links to private pages.

From what I glean of your post, a demonstration that a thing can be consistently calculated in a certain way does not prove that the method corresponds to reality.

I found a reference to computing a delta time for a distant object relative to a change in reference frame at some local event:

delta(CADO_T) = -L * delta(v).

If L is the distance to the distant object and delta(v) is the 1-D instant velocity change (both relative to in the distant object's frame), then this equation does indeed yield the time difference between events at that distant object that are simultaneous with the local instant acceleration event.

Not sure if this is relevant to what you are posting here, or in what way this contradicts some accepted statement or some such.

[jeffreyH]

Hi Mike. I read so far through your page and got the gist. I will read it right through when I get time. I will have some points of discussion.

[Colin2B]

So is my proof valid? No one has ever contacted me (in the 20 years since that paper was published) and told me that they had found a flaw in my proof. .

But I’m sure you must have seen the discussions on other fora?

Can you post a copy here so people don’t have to go to another site?
We do say in our terms of use that theories should not be ones which have been published elsewhere.

[MikeFontenot (OP)]

Sounds like a candidate for the new-theory section of this forum.

It's NOT a new theory.  It is standard Einstein special relativity.  The proof I was talking about is a new RESULT in that standard theory that hasn't been obtained before (as far as I know).

From what I glean of your post, a demonstration that a thing can be consistently calculated in a certain way does not prove that the method corresponds to reality.

I think it does, because what I prove is that the results are equivalent to what the observer can obtain from his own elementary observations, combined with his own elementary calculations.  I maintain that that makes those results meaningful and "real".

I found a reference to computing a delta time for a distant object relative to a change in reference frame at some local event:

delta(CADO_T) = -L * delta(v).

If L is the distance to the distant object and delta(v) is the 1-D instant velocity change (both relative to in the distant object's frame), then this equation does indeed yield the time difference between events at that distant object that are simultaneous with the local instant acceleration event.

That equation is from my webpage.