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 (Adminstrative comment: PM him for his e-mail address.)

___________

Michael L. Fontenot

"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 (Adminstrative comment: PM him for his e-mail address.)

___________

Michael L. Fontenot

Last edited by a moderator: