John C. Huang

John C. Huang (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The time formula in STR is wrong

6 steps to disprove Special Relativity (SR)

In the following 6 steps I will explain why Lorentz Transformation (LT) was not proved in year 1905, then briefly introduce old SR and current SR and then I will explain why Ives-Stilwell experiment did not verify SR. I will use the last two steps to prove that SR is wrong.

I use k to represent Lorentz Factor, (1-((v/c)^2)^(-1/2), for the following paragraphs and I use c for the speed of light in vacuum, v for the inertial speed, L or l for wavelength.

1). Lorentz Transformation (LT) was not proved in year 1905

On Einstein's paper dated 6-30-1905, English version, he claimed that he used two postulates and proved LT. His two postulates are fine but his proof is wrong. In his section 1, he defined a method of synchronization for two clocks at two fixed points A and B. Then in section 3 he applied that method to a 3 points situation to claim an equation of (t0+t2)/2 = t1.

To expand his method from two fixed points to 3 points situation with emitting point E, reflecting point R, and terminating point T we must add one more condition to the definition, that is the distance ER = RT. Because with tA'-tB = tB-tA, if ER>RT, then (tA+(ER/c))-tB = (ER-RT)/2c, we have clock B earlier than clock A by (ER-RT)/2c; if ER < RT, then tB-(tA+(ER/c)) = (RT-ER)/2c, we have clock B later than clock A by (RT-ER)/2c; only when ER=RT we have two clocks synchronized to each other.

In the situation of section 3, ER>RT, so that at time (t0+t2)/2 the flash of ray was in between points E and R so that at time t1 when the flash of ray finally reached the point R we actually had an inequality relation (t0+t2)/2 < t1. Based on the correct inequality relation, Einstein could not prove the equations of LT at the end of section 3 as he claimed. Einstein did not prove LT. No one has proved LT yet. Please comment on my proof stated above.

1-1. M-M experiment reported 1887

LT was based on M-M experiment reported 1887. I found a possible explanation for the null result. On page 336 M-M stated "It may be remarkable that the rays ba1 and ca1, do not now meet exactly in the same point a1, though the difference is of the second order; this does not affect the validity of the reasoning." That statement was correct only before M-M turned the apparatus to collect the other 15 records. Because that difference would increase to the maximum at 90 degree and then reduce to the second order at 180 degree, then increase up to 270 degree and reduce after that. The difference would cancel out most of the difference M-M expected. If M-M did not use light source with spherical front end and they had tried to use a light source with plane front end the result would be different, I think.

2). First version of SR, old SR, was based on LT, did not have length contraction.

Einstein applied the first time equation in LT to a simple event, the speed of the origin point O' of the moving system, and derived his time equation of SR, old SR. The event could be a person at O’ raised a big sign showing the number when x equaled each of hundred numbers. That was x = vt and we had t' = t/k.

According to that old SR a time period t' measured by an observer at the origin O' of the moving system from point B to point E would be measured as expanded to t = kt' by the observer at the origin O of the stationary system. Since the speed was v = BE/t', the v would be measured as reduced to BE/t = BE/kt' = v/k by the observer at the origin of the stationary system. Why? Because in old SR, Einstein focused on a special situation that x = vt, so that x' = k(x-vt) = 0 and there was no length contraction in old SR. BE remained the same in both inertial systems.

3). Current version of SR, SR, was based on the 3rd postulate.

Right after Einstein created old SR in section 4, he created current version of SR in the same section. He simply removed the additional condition, x = vt, of the old SR by assuming the speed of light is independent to the location or inertial speed of observers, the 3rd postulate.

Einstein introduced the 3rd postulate so that he could remove the condition of x = vt. The 3rd postulate is against to commonsense. I have two reasons here:

3-1. Doppler effect theory

According to Doppler effect theory when the source of light moved toward an observer, the observed frequency would be f' = (c/(c-v))f and the observed wavelength would be l' = ((c-v)/c)l, so that the speed of light would remained the same: f'l' = fl.

However, when the observer moved toward a stationary source of light, the theory stated that the wavelength would remain the same with new frequency of f' = ((c+v)/c)f so that the speed of light would be calculated faster as c' = c+v. That meant according to the theory, the 2nd postulate was good, but the 3rd postulate was wrong.

3-2. An experiment when we have superclock to measure nanosecond

We will need two flat glass rings of 5" width with 12" and 24" diameter each. Two rings will be separated 12m apart at point A and B. Ring A, 12", will have half-tone yellow color and ring B, 24", will have half-tone red color. Let two super camcorders be faced both rings on the line connected both center points of rings. Camcorder L will be 12m away from A at the other side of B and camcorder C will be 12m away from B at the other side of A. Let both camcorders be start record at 10:00 pm one night in the future. The person has camcorder L will turn his flashlight on at 10:00 pm and 1 minute then he will turn it off 20 nanoseconds (ns) later, by the timer, of cause.

We will check the recorded event at camcorder L to see that the ring A will be lighted roughly from 10:00 pm, 1 minute, and 80 ns to 100 ns while ring B will be lighted from 160 ns to 180 ns. That will mean the speed of light is measured as about c/2. In the video recorded by camcorder C we will see both of ring A and ring B will be lighted from 120 ns to 140 ns. That will mean the speed of light is measured as about infinitely fast. This experiment will verify that Einstein's 3rd postulate is wrong.

4). Ives-Stilwell experiment did not verify SR.

All old SR or SR had to say was that t' and v in the moving system were measured as kt' and v/k by an observer in the stationary system. Nothing else.

Based on that understanding, we would find out that current mainstream physicists have not applied SR correctly yet. To apply SR to Ives-Stilwell experiment correctly, my explanation is that the speed v of the source of light would be measured as v/k by the stationary observer, that means, SR would expect l' = (1+-(v/c))l be measured as L' = (1+-(v/(kc)))l. When c>v>0, we have k>1 so that v > v/k. Then, when the source moved toward the observer, SR expected L' > l' and when the source moved away from the observer, SR expected L' < l'.

However, the main stream explanation has stated SR would expect l' = (1+-(v/c))l be measured as L' = k(1+-(v/c))l so that L' > l' for both situations and that matched the experiment result. I think they have not applied SR correctly yet.

5). C Transformation (CT) is to replace LT.

CT is derived from Galilean Transformation (GT) by removing t' = t and t = t' so that CT does not change x' = x-vt' to x' = x-vt. In CT the spatial equations are (x', y', z') = (x-vt', y, z) and (x, y, z) = (x'+vt', y' ,z'). The spatial equations in CT is proved as the spatial equations of GT was proved mathematically and logically.

Let me introduce and prove the time equation. When an event happened at point A(x,y,z) and time tA as measured at A, the picture was sent to all directions by light. If the speed of light was infinitely fast like in GT, the picture would be sent to all observers instantly so that they all measured the same event time, t' = tA = t. But as we know now, the speed of light is limited and we could use c to represent it. The event time measured by the observer at origin point O would be t = tA+(OA/c) and by the observer at origin point O' would be t' = tA+(O'A/c) so that t' = t+((O'A-OA)/c) and t = t'+((OA-O'A)/c) are proved.

5-1. LT is wrong

CT is just an algebra version of GT. Since LT and CT are based on same environment, only one of them can be correct. CT is proved above so that LT is wrong. Please let me know if you see anything wrong in CT so that we can modify it and make it better.

6). C Relativity (CR) is to replace the equation of SR

We get CR from CT the same way Einstein created the old SR from LT. We started from O'A = 0, so that t' = t-(OA/c) = t-(v/c)|t'|. When t' > 0, t' = (c/(c+v)) t, O' was moving away from O. When t' < 0, t' = (c/(c-v)) t, O' was moving toward O. Since CT is proved, with additional condition of O’A = 0, CR is proved too.

6-1. SR is wrong

Since old SR and CR are based on same environment, only one of them could be correct. We proved CR as above so that old SR is wrong. Current SR stated that in general, so long as there was an inertial system moving at speed v, an observer at stationary system would measure the time, t’, in the moving system as t = kt’. That meant if SR is correct then the old SR based on the environment of LT must be correct too. That also meant if old SR is wrong then SR is wrong. We proved SR is wrong because old SR is wrong.

6-2. When v is approaching c

When t' < 0 and v = ((n-1)/n)c, n is an integer, n > 2, we have t' = nt so that t = t'/n. It implies that when v is approaching c, t will approach 0 so that the speed of photons running into our eyes will be calculated as infinitely fast by our brains.

6-3. When v > c

We may have some strange results from CR. If v > c and t' < 0, we have (c-v) < 0, then O' will be looked like moving away from O to the observer at O. It is also strange when v = 3c and t' > 0, the observer at O will calculate the speed of O' as c/4.

Please let me know if you find any mistake in CT and/or CR so that we can correct it. Thanks.

John C. Huang (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How Galileo helped Einstein

How Galileo helped Einstein 2008-8-8 by: John Huang

Two years ago I found this letter dated 1955-5-5 from a Chinese book I bought at a Half-Price store. It was a Chinese letter with “Galileo” and “Einstein” in English. The writer, Ah-Shang, told his physics teacher about the second choice of the Galilean Transformation. I knew that Galileo tried to find out if the speed of light was finite in his 1638 experiment. The result showed that the time for light (photons) to travel 1 mile was smaller than the measurement error. That meant Galileo had two choices.

1. Two Choices

The smart one was to take advantage of algebra by using a symbol, liked c, to represent the speed of light so that no matter c is infinite or finite his Transformation would be always correct. The stubborn one was to follow his true belief. We learned from the history that Galileo was stubborn and he believed that the speed of light was infinite.

1-1. Ah-Shang’s Decision Ah-Shang did not have interest on “why did Galileo choose infinite?”. His purpose of writing that letter was to show his teacher how lucky Einstein was to have enjoyed the title of “the smartest person” for more than 50 years with the help of stubborn Galileo. To understand how lucky Einstein was on June 30th, 1905, people had to learn the Galilean Transformation (GT) in detail. Ah-Shang did not provide it in his letter but I would try to make GT easy for people graduated from high school. It would be short and in detail.

2. About Stubborn GT

Here was what I learned in year 2005. There were two inertial systems in GT.

2-1. Two Inertial Systems One was rest with origin point O (0,0,0) and 3 axes x, y, and z while the other one with origin point O’ and 3 axes x’, y’, and z’ was moving at a constant velocity v toward the positive-direction of x-axis. All positive-directions of 3 axes of the moving system were pointing to the same respective positive-directions of 3 axes in the stationary system and the x’-axis was merged into the x-axis. The last condition arranged for these two systems was about time. The time t in the stationary system and the time t’ in the moving system were equal to 0 when two origins met. That meant before O’=O the time was negative. As you might know, the famous Lorentz Transformation (LT) had the same arrangement.

2-2. The Purpose of GT There was an observer, Mr. M, at the origin point O and an observer, Mr. M’, at the origin point O’. The purpose of the first set of GT was for Mr. M to calculate (x’, y’, z’) and t’ based on the measured numbers (x, y, z) and t from observing an event happened at point A (x, y, z) and time t. The first set was (x’, y’, z’) = (x-vt, y, z) and t’=t. The second set of GT was for Mr. M’ to calculate (x, y, z) and t from measured numbers (x’, y’, z’) and t’ for the same event happened at the same time and the same point A with coordinates measured from the origin point O’. It was (x, y, z) = (x’+vt’, y’, z’) and t=t’. We all knew that LT had the same purpose of GT but only half of their equations were the same: (y’=y and z’=z) in the first set and (y=y’ and z=z’) in the second set.

3. Einstein and the LT

Since Galileo believed the speed of light was infinite he thought when an event started, the image of the starting of that event would be sent by light to all directions at an infinite speed so that all observers of that event, no matter how far they were away from that event, they would record same time for that moment, the starting time of that event. That was why the stubborn GT stated t’=t and t=t’.

3-1. Cheated In year 1982, scientists already knew the speed of light in vacuum was about 300000000 meters per second. People knew that t’=t and t=t’ were wrong. The image of the starting of an event would be sent to all directions under the speed of light so that the farther observer would measure a later time. When Mr. Lorentz suggested to replace GT by LT scientists were very excited, not because of t’=t would be replaced but it was for another reason. Scientists were too eager to establish a new theory for that other reason so that when Einstein claimed he proved LT on 1905-6-30 most scientists were “cheated”, as described by Ah-Shang in his letter.

4. Algebra Version of GT

“If someone had updated t’=t and t=t’ by using c to represent the speed of light for Galileo then people would not have to be cheated by the Theory of Special Relativity (TSR) for almost 50 years.” It was another comment in Ah-Shang’s letter. Here was what Ah-Shang did to update t’=t and t=t’.

4-1. t = ta+(d/c) Beside using c to represent the speed of light Ah-Shang used d for the distance between point A and O, d’ for the distance between point A and O’, then he used ta for the time of the starting of that event, but, it was measured at the point A. Since the time t was measured by Mr. M at point O, t was later than ta by the time the image was sent by the speed of light from the point A to the point O, that meant t = ta+(d/c). We also had t’ = ta+(d’/c). Since ta = t-(d/c), we had the time formula for the first set of Algebra version of GT (AVO-GT) t’ = t+((d’-d)/c). It simply stated, to calculate t’ from t, we could think through ta, first deducted (d/c) from t to get ta then added (d’/c) to ta to get t’.

4-2. x’ = x-vt’ The formula of the coordinates in the first set of AVO-TG was a little bit tricky because the origin point O’ was always moving. The most important step was to understand which was that particular location of O’ we should use to calculate the variant x’. Since it was at time t’ that Mr. M’ saw the image of the starting of that event, the location of O’ at time t’ was O’ (vt’, 0, 0) as displayed by the coordinates of system O. According to mathematical formula to shift coordinate system from (0, 0, 0) to (vt’, 0, 0), the coordinate (x, y, z) would be changed to (x-vt’, y, z). Then we had (x’, y’, z’) = (x-vt’, y, z) as well as x’ = x-vt’. The first set of AVO-TG was (x’, y’, z’) = (x-vt’, y, z) and t’ = t+((d’-d)/c). The second set was (x. y. z) = (x’+vt’, y’, z’) and t = t’+((d-d’)/c).

5. Algebra Version of TSR

Einstein was honored with the title of “the smartest person” because of his TSR was taught by most professors of physics and it was also verified by most students of physics. They all admired that TSR was a miracle. Only a few scientists did not believe in TSR but none of them mentioned about the algebra version of TSR (AVO-TSR). Here was what Ah-Shang stated in his letter.

5-1. About TSR TSR was an application of LT. There were 8 equations in LT, 4 in each set, and TSR was just part of one equation in LT. That was t’ = k (t-(vx/(c^2))), k was the famous Lorentz Factor. The formula t’ = k (t-(vx/(c^2))) was for any event happened at any point A (x, y, z) so that it looked complicated. Einstein was very smart that he focused on events happened at the origin point O’ so that the x coordinates of events would be always represented by x = vt when it was measured by Mr. M. After you replaced x by vt and simplified that equation you would get t’ = t/k if x = vt. It was amazingly neat.

5-2. LT or GT However, since LT and GT were based on the same arrangement of two inertial systems the relationship of t’ = t+((d’-d)/c) and t’ = k (t-(vx/(c^2))) could not be correct at the same time for the same event. If LT was wrong then TSR had to follow it.

5-3. AVO-TSR When formula t’ = t+((d’-d)/c) was used to analysis events happened at origin point O’ we had d’=0 so that t’ = t-(d/c). Since the distance between O and O’ at any time t’ was d = v |t’| we had two different AVO-TSR formulas. When t>0, d = vt’, t’ = t-(vt’/c) so that t = ((c+v)/c)t’ or t’ = (c/(c+v))t. When t<0, d = -vt’, t’ = t+(vt’/c) so that t = ((c-v)/c)t’ or t’ = (c/(c-v))t.

5-4. Infinitely Fast When t<0 the point O’ was approaching the point O. To Mr. M, the time t’ spent by the moving of Mr. M’ was measured as t = ((c-v)/c)t’. That meant when Mr. M’ moved from a beginning point B at time tb’ to an ending point E at time te’ the recorded time tb and te would have relationship as te-tb = ((c-v)/c) (te’-tb’) = ((c-v)/c) (BE/v) = BE/(cv/(c-v)). Ah-Shang stated if the moving speed of Mr. M’ was measured by Mr. M as V then since the averaged speed for Mr. M’ to move from point B to point E was BE/(te-tb) we had V = BE/(te-tb) = BE/(BE/(cv/(c-v))) = cv/(c-v).

When the moving speed of Mr. M’ was approaching c the measured speed of Mr. M’ would be approaching infinitely fast to Mr. M. That meant to all human beings all photons run into their eyes at a speed looked like infinitely fast to them! That might be the reason why Galileo believed that the speed of light was infinite.

6. TSR or AVO-TSR

TSR did not consider the absolute value of t’ in d = v |t’| and assumed that when Mr. M’ was approaching Mr. M the time relationship was the same as when Mr. M’ was moving away from Mr. M. TSR even went further and claimed that t’ = t/k could stand alone without the support of LT because Einstein assumed the speed of light was measured the same, c in the vacuum, by any inertial observer.

6-1. Measuring the speed of photons If we had super camcorder with built-in super timer to record nanoseconds then we could measure the speed of photons. After we recorded a ray started at 10:00 pm from a flashlight to two posts 12 m and 30 m away from the camcorder we could calculate the speed of photons in the ray. The result would be around (30m-12m)/((10:00+200ns)-(10:00+80ns)) = 0.15 m/ns. That was about half of the speed of light in vacuum, 0.3 m/ns. Above experiment was based on the similar formula in section 5-4, V = cv/(c+v) for t>0, and when v=c, we had V = 0.5c. As we learned from section 5-4, the speed of a photon was looked like infinitely fast if it was running toward the observer; now, above experiment showed that the speed of photons was about 0.5c if photons were running away from the observer. That meant the assumption of Einstein, “the speed of light was measured the same, c in the vacuum, by any inertial observer”, was not correct.

6-2.TSR when k = (c+v)/c The time relationship in TSR was at the same direction of AVO-TSR when t>0. When t>0 both of them showed t’<t. When t>0, in AVO-TSR, t’ = (c/(c+v))t < t. When v>0, k = (1- ((v/c)^2))^(-1/2) > 1, so that in TSR, t’ = t/k < t. That meant when 1/k = c/(c+v) TSR was the same as AVO-TSR. That meant TSR was correct when Mr. M’ was moving away from Mr. M at a speed around 0.85c.

6-3.Speed in TSR If Mr. M’ was approaching Mr. M at a speed of 0.85c, then, the speed of Mr. M’ if measured by Mr. M was V = (0.85c/0.15). V was about 5.66c, faster than c. If Mr. M’ was moving away from Mr. M at a speed of 0.85c then V = (0.85c/1.85). V was about 0.46c. However, TSR claimed that the direction of moving would not change the relation of t’ and t. In TSR, Mr. M’ knew his moving speed was v but to Mr. M the time that Mr. M’ moved from point B to point E was V = B’E’/(tb-te). If we assumed that the distance B’E’ was fixed that B’E’ = BE then V = BE/(k(tb’-te’)) = BE/(k(BE/v)) and we had V = v/k. Judged from the x’ = k(x-vt) and x = k(x’+vt’), looked like B’E’ would be measured differently by Mr. M. If B’E’ = BE/k then V = v/(k^2), if B’E’ = kBE then V = v. In any situation, the relation between V and v would not be verified by the experiment stated in the section 6-1.

6-4. Your Answer I had told you everything on Ah-Shang’s letter. Only one of TSR and AVO-TSR could be correct. You might find the answer for yourself. I appreciated your concern.

John C. Huang (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct Time Formula

Einstein is well known by the Special Theory of Relativity. However, the time formula in STR is not correct. The correct time formula should be:

Ta' = Ta + (ao/C) ----- [1]

Ta represents the time of an event started at point a and Ta' stands for the time recorded by the camcorder at point o for the same event started at point a. ao stands for the distance from point a to point o and C represents the speed of light.

The time formula for a period of time should be:

Tab' = Tab + ((bo-ao)/C) ----- [2]

Tab represents the time period of the event started at point a and ended at point b and Tab' is the time period recorded by a camcorder at point o for the same event.

The proof for formula [1] is very simple. Since the 'picture of the event-starting' takes time to travel from point a to point o, when the camcorder recorded that 'picture of event-starting' the time should be (ao/C) after the actual starting time. Ta' = Ta + (ao/C).

The Lorentz transformation is not proved yet. There are some minor mistakes and one major mistake in Einstein's 1905 paper.

Thank for let me keep my user page. I will try to explain my view points in better way in the future. John C. Huang (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)