[MikeFontenot (OP)]

Is there anyone on this forum who is familiar with the Minguzzi simultaneity method's resolution of the twin paradox?

[Halc]

Is there anyone on this forum who is familiar with the Minguzzi simultaneity method's resolution of the twin paradox?

I assume you describe it on your website. You then proceed to use a different method and declare the result contradictory because they give different answers.  You conclude that it violates the principle of causality, which none of the methods do. I do find his method self-contradictory, but it has nothing to do with the principle of causality.

This is true regardless of which simultaneity method is being assumed (including Minguizzi's), because there is no acceleration involved in this scenario. The time dilation equation rules in this scenario.

You can't use equations from a different method and still call it Minguizzi's method, especially since his method yields a different figure.  His method is not dependent on acceleration at all, so whether acceleration is involved or not is moot.

Perhaps it would be best to keep the discussion to one forum instead of spreading it all over the web like this.

[MikeFontenot (OP)]

I do find his method self-contradictory, but it has nothing to do with the principle of causality.

Suppose the two twins are perpetually inertial. Then each says the other is ageing more slowly. So the traveler (he) says that the home twin (she) is 5 when he is 10, and that she is 10 when he is 20, and that she is 20 when he is 40, etc. This is true regardless of which simultaneity method is being assumed (including Minguizzi's), because there is no acceleration involved in this scenario. The time dilation equation rules in this scenario. So Minguizzi says that, in THIS scenario, when he is 10, she is 5.

BUT, if he decides instead to reverse his velocity when he is 20, then Minguizzi then says that she is ageing at the SAME rate as he is, during the ENTIRE outbound leg. Minguizzi now says she is 10 when he is 10. So in Minguizzi's method, her age when he is 10 depends on what he decides to do in the future, when he is 20. That violates the principle of causality ... causality says that an effect can't precede its cause.

[MikeFontenot (OP)]

This is true regardless of which simultaneity method is being assumed (including Minguizzi's), because there is no acceleration involved in this scenario. The time dilation equation rules in this scenario.

You can't use equations from a different method and still call it Minguizzi's method, especially since his method yields a different figure.  His method is not dependent on acceleration at all, so whether acceleration is involved or not is moot.

    We're now GUESSING what Minguzzi would say, if asked whether his instructions should be followed even in the case of the traveling twin NEVER changing his velocity. (His "instructions" being: to use the imaginary twin's age when"it" is co-located with the traveler as the current age of the home twin (according to the traveler)).

    The problem right now with Minguzzi is that he now says that his paper has NOTHING to do with simultaneity at a distance! That's obviously nonsense, because the imaginary twin serves no purpose other than defining a method of determining simultaneity at a distance.

    Feel free to ask him about the no-acceleration scenario ... his email address is given in that arXiv paper. But he's never answered my emails. Someone else that I've been corresponding with HAS gotten recent responses from him, so you might have better luck with him than I've had.
     

[Colin2B]

It would appear you have set up this thread just to introduce your own theory.
We do not appreciate you doing this.
I notice you have tried it before and have been directed to New Theories, where some discussion has taken place
This thread has been locked, please do not repeat the same theory multiple times.