> On 5 Jun 2022, at 07:57, Richard Aiken - raikenclw at gmail.com (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
>
> Hey All,
>
> It just occurred to me that my understanding of the calculator might be wrong. I can't tell if it assumes turnover to arrive at rest or simple straightline travel. Although I suspect it's the first, because of that extra almost-two years over 500. I suspect that this is the time spent ramping up to 0.99C plus the time spent ramping back down.<snip/>

I’m sure that there are more mathematically ept people on the list who will be able to set us right, but…
The Lorentz equations that you appear to be using for these calculations describe movement in unaccelerated frames, and you are straight up throwing away that constraint by having your ship constantly accelerating. I don’t know how that would affect the relativistic calculations (I last did relativity about forty years ago, and am aware that my brain no longer works as well as it did then!) but am confident that the situation would be more complicated than the simple Lorenz equations describe. Perhaps some one else can explain for us?
At the heart of the complexity is the dichotomy that two unaccelerated but different  frames of reference each have their own solution to the Lorenz equations that are in opposition to each other, but both equally valid - they both think that someone on the other frame is experiencing time at a slower rate than they are; they ech think that *they* are at rest and the other is moving fast.
Is anyone aware of any theoretical research being done to disambiguate these conditions? Enquiring minds want to know!
Regards, Andy

--
Andrew Long
Andrew dot Long at Mac dot com