Well, it's not my assumption, it's yours. See above quote. Neither one of us was hiding it.
I think we agree on that point.
Absolutely. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
There is no conflict.

PS: It's GrapesOfWrath, not GrapesofWrath. GrapesofWrath is a guy I know in Europe.

<font size=-1>[Added PS]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2002-10-23 10:22 ]</font>

Maybe there is no confusion about this, but perhaps there is.

GrapesOfWrath stated that both of us assumed that all frames of reference are equally valid, and any frame of reference could be used as a stationary frame of reference.

That might be somewhat misleading, although unintentionally. For the purposes of a mathematical proof (which is under dispute), I temporarially assumed that any frame of reference could be used as a stationary frame of reference. I attempted to show that we then arrive at a mathematical inconsistency, and thus the assumption was wrong. I certainly threw in another assumption at the same time, but we have already discussed that.

My position has always been that there is such a thing as a stationary frame of reference. My position is that the position that any frame of reference could be used as a stationary frame of reference is incorrect.

GrapesOfWrath presented a reasonable argument about time dilation. I pointed out an assumption in his argument. I do disagree with his assumption.

Could I summarize what we have covered?

Here is an assumption, and I disagree with the assumption: All frames of reference are equally valid, and any frame of reference could be used as a stationary frame of reference.

My thoughts are that we arrive at the following:

1: Any observer, observing an object in motion relative to itself, will observe time dilation for that object in motion. The observed time dilation will always be that time slows down for the object being observed.

2: Compounding time dilation will always result in a compounded dilation of time slowing down, never increasing in speed.

3: Compounding time dilation so that we arrive back at the original observer will always result in the original observer concluding that his time is slower than his own time, an illogical conclusion.

It seems to me that GrapesOfWrath and others have already voiced their objections to the reasoning above, and further comment certainly is welcome.

Let us take a look at the model I am suggesting:

Assumption: The other assumption, that all frames of reference are equally valid, and that any frame of reference could be used as a stationary frame of reference, is not assumed to be correct, or perhaps that the assumption specifically is incorrect.

We arrive at the following conclusions:

1: Any observer, observing an object in motion, will observe time dilation for that object in motion, unless both the observer and the object in motion are moving at the same velocity with respect to the stationary frame of reference. The observed time dilation may be that time for the other object is slowing or increasing in speed.

2: Compounding time dilation can result in a compounded dilation of time that is slower, faster, or that is the same.

3: Compounding time dilations will always result in the an observer seeing his own rate of time, and the compounded time dilation being identical.

4: It is hypothetically possible for an observer to determine what the stationary frame of reference is, by sending clocks away from him at different velocities, and measuring the time dilation. If clocks are sent in many directions, then the clock observed to have the greatest increase in its speed, is traveling opposite the direction of the observer. When the velocity of the moving clock is increased until the rate of time matches that of the rate time progresses for the observer, then we can determine the velocity of the observer and we can identify the stationary frame of reference.

5: Special relativity and general relativity remain very accurate mathematical models. The accuracy of the models will increase when the stationary frame of reference is known.

The assumption that you threw in was at odds with special relativity--of course, you are going to get a contradiction when you do that. However, you cannot then conclude that special relativity is internally inconsistent.
It was, as you've said, your own assumption. However temporary you intended it, you did make it, in order to present your argument.
Not always. Perhaps in your reasoning, but not in the reasoning of relativity. In fact, Einstein (and others) often use the fact that there is no contradicting observations by the original observer, in order to derive other consequences of the theories.

Grapes is right, V... You cannot simply multiply time dialtions jumping from reference frame to reference frame and get the right answer. That's not how special relativity works. You can call this your "new" theory of relativity, but you yourself have shown it to be inconsistent.

Special relativity itself is totally consistent as outlined by the site I gave you.