# A Simple Example, and a Test

#### MikeFontenot

Here is an example that I posted to a UseNet group that might be of interest to people on this forum:

First, I wrote:

The MCMIFM (the Momentarily Co-Moving Inertial Frame Montage) is the uniquely true and meaningful reference frame for the accelerating observer, because it is the ONLY reference frame that agrees with the observations and first-principle calculations that he himself can make. [...] My CADO reference frame is completely equivalent to the MCMIFM.

Then, I wrote:

Last edited:

#### Woody

I have to admit that I am relying on my experience with other consequences of accelerating reference frames (e.g. the Coriolis effect) rather than direct (mathematical) experience with the time dilation issues, however...

I suspect that a rigorous mathematical analysis of the MCMIFM will show that there is a missing term for the "rate of change of MCMIFM".

This will mean that for modest accelerations your MCMIFM algorithm will work well,
but for larger accelerations, you will find there will be discrepancies.

My personal mathematical dexterity is very unsophisticated,
(I can usually follow someone else's route, but struggle to find my own)
so I will have to leave it to others to either support or put down my argument.

#### MikeFontenot

[...]
I suspect that a rigorous mathematical analysis of the MCMIFM will show that there is a missing term for the "rate of change of MCMIFM".

This will mean that for modest accelerations your MCMIFM algorithm will work well, but for larger accelerations, you will find there will be discrepancies.
[...]
I'll quote from my previous posting:

"The MCMIFM (the Momentarily Co-Moving Inertial Frame Montage) is the uniquely true and meaningful reference frame for the accelerating observer, because it is the ONLY reference frame that agrees with the observations and first-principle calculations that he himself can make. [...] My CADO reference frame is completely equivalent to the MCMIFM."

The fact that the CADO reference frame agrees with the accelerating traveler's OWN observations and OWN first-principles calculations, for ANY accelerations (large or small), is enough to convince me that it is correct. And it is the ONLY frame that agrees with those observations and first-principles calculations.

Those observations and first-principles calculations are explained in detail in Section 10 (entitled "Empirical Determination of the Current Age of a Distant Perpetually-Inertial Person") of my webpage,