A Classical Model of Relativistic Acceleration/Electromagnetism

[The victorious truther]

Dear scienceforum.net, 

As of late i've been trying to investigate the non-mainstream claim i've heard around on certain "crank" youtube channels or in comment sections in relation to relativistic acceleration (constant proper acceleration). Some of these layman or non-mainstream critics of special relativity have claimed that because the electromagnetic interaction is finite in speed (rather than being instantaneous) that the slow drop off to a constant velocity in the long run (never reaching the speed of the interaction "c") can be fully explained or expected under a classical model of the interaction. What this model is or how it explains nor mathematically realizes exactly or approximately the special relativistic solution is a mystery because it's usually vague in how this is stated. This concept, however, had peaked my interest and I decided to investigate on my own by constructing a classical mathematical model to describe the interaction to then see what would come out of it. Below is an incomplete paper i've written on it for fun and would love for any of you here to critically analyze it as well as double check my work because it was getting rather insane towards the end. I hope this was the correct area to put this as it's speculation. Thank you for your close consideration. 

Sincerely, a freshmen going on sophomore year 

Non-Mainstream Solution to a Relativistic Problem.pdf

[studiot]

Quote

If we assume further that the traveler possesses a constant proper
acceleration then a0
x can be treated as merely some constant number.

I'll just quote this from your paper, before the moderators discuss the rules with you.

No sir, that is an invalid statement.

An acceleration has units, even if its value is constant.

These units then make your later equation

[math]x\left( 0 \right) = 0 = \frac{{{c^2}}}{{a_x^0}} + C[/math]

dimensionally invalid.

Note  Due to a bug in the programming here you may need to click on the page refresh button in your browser to see the equation in my coding.

 

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by studiot

[The victorious truther]

@studiot, yes, it should be worded to mean that's constant but not dimensionless. I'll fix this, thank you for clarifying this. 

[Markus Hanke]

22 hours ago, The victorious truther said:

can be fully explained or expected under a classical model of the interaction

Special Relativity is a classical model.
I think the term you are looking for is “Newtonian”.

[The victorious truther]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

Special Relativity is a classical model.
I think the term you are looking for is “Newtonian”.

I always used classical physics to mean physics before Einstein's special/general theories of relativity. Classical is the same as obeying Newtonian laws of physics together with a galilean or similar spacetime structure. 

[StringJunky]

30 minutes ago, The victorious truther said:

I always used classical physics to mean physics before Einstein's special/general theories of relativity. Classical is the same as obeying Newtonian laws of physics together with a galilean or similar spacetime structure. 

Gravity is not quantized in GR, so it's classical.

[The victorious truther]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Gravity is not quantized in GR, so it's classical.

Yes, some people mean quantized vs. continuous when they say something is classical. 

[StringJunky]

24 minutes ago, The victorious truther said:

Yes, some people mean quantized vs. continuous when they say something is classical. 

That's my understanding.

[The victorious truther]

Just now, StringJunky said:

That's my understanding.

Okay.

@String Junky, what have you spent the most time studying over the years in physics? 

[StringJunky]

I'm an interested neophyte in all the sciences.

[The victorious truther]

@String Junky, then what did you think of my incomplete paper? I had done that in my free time for fun. Critiques are highly desired. It's so welcoming to see someone that is throughly peaked, interest wise, in all of the known sciences.