The end of Einstein's time dilation equation.
by John Doan

... to boldly go where no man has ever gone before.

This is just another version of the page Interview with Einstein in which I claim Einstein's time dilation equation is wrong. Different summary is presented here, but my argument's principle is still the same. It's based on many dialogues I've had with many people who rarely share the same thoughts but often the same wish towards a better understanding.

1. Let's start over again, in just a few words, tell me all your claims about relativity.

• Firstly, Einstein's equations about time dilation (TD) and length contraction (LC) are wrong. Real TD and LC, if exist, are never caused by v in uniform motion expressed in Einstein's equation T = To/Ö(1 - v2/c2) and L = LoÖ (1 - v2/c2). On the other hand, if we accept those Einstein's equations are mathematically right, then they're not to calculate real TD and LC, either. They should not be called equations for TD and LC, either. We might have no use for them, either. And applying them on the twin paradox is only a misinterpretation. Secondly, and this is what I only present in the book, I will put the definition to time, and challenge not only Einstein's equation but the whole concept of time dilation.
• Next, I agree with Einstein's concept about 4-D space-time. But more, I can draw a 4-D object in a real 4-D space-time that anyone can see. Then, I will challenge Einstein's concept of space curvature in the book. My claim is it's still not wrong to say our space-time cannot be curved.
• Last, I challenge Einstein's second postulate. I can explain Michelson-Morley experiment without accepting that postulate. My claim is the speed of light is not constant and absolute regardless of source and observer's movement.
Within the limited space of webpages, the only argument I can present is the first part of the first claim: Einstein's equations about TD and LC are wrong.

2. Prove it.

I don't know what you mean by prove it. Has Einstein ever proved his theory? If his theory were proved, why do you think I should bother to challenge something that has been already proved? If his theory were proved, why do you think people are still confused about it? Could Einstein ever prove his 4-D space-time by presenting a real model for it? Had he done so, why did Kraus bother writing a book to say Einstein's space-time is a major fallacy unique in scientific history? Had Einstein ever put a definition to time when talking about time dilation? Had he done so, why did Professor Paul Davies have to write a book about Time, and confessed he's more confused after writing it? So if you ask me to prove my claim in the sense I have to prove it so right that everyone cannot deny it, then ask yourself have you ever asked Einstein the same?

But if you mean prove it by presenting my argument, my reasons to substantiate my claims, then certainly I can do it like everyone else.

3. Ok, tell me why you think Einstein's equations about TD and LC are wrong?

Firstly, without talking about the book, let me start by saying that I agree with Einstein about TD (and LC). I believe TD does exist and we can prove it in future. The twin paradox would happen one day, in the sense one brother flies out and comes back 10 years younger than his brother. Yes, it would happen, definitely. Not today, not tomorrow, but some day.

The question is not whether TD would happen or not, but how it would happen? What causes TD? And that is the point, it's about the TD equation that I want to challenge Einstein.

Now more than Einstein, I believe there're many different ways to cause TD. Who knows what would happen in the future? Our astronauts might one day land on a weird planet, go through extreme environment, touch the boundary of impossibles and discover hundred new ways to make time run slower or faster. We might have then hundred kinds of different TD equations:

T/To = f(a)
T/To = f(b)
T/To = f(c,d), etc,...
or combination of all these variables T/To = S f(an)

In which, T is the period of time registered in the spaceship's clock from its departure until its arrival back to Earth, and To is the period of time registered on Earth's clock during the same period of spaceship's departure and arrival. (Einstein's definition of T is a bit different, but we'll discuss it later) And a, b, c,.. are causes to TD, and who knows they could be anything from gravitation, acceleration, temperature, force, electromagnetic field, etc,...

But whatever different causes to TD, TD can only happen with two following conditions (suppose we're talking about a spaceship and the Earth)

• If (a) is the cause to TD expressed in the equation T/To = f(a), TD can only happen in a non-symmetric environment as far as variable (a) concerned, in the sense, that cause (a) must only happen (or involve) with the spaceship but not the Earth. The earth must not experience the same (a) like the spaceship, otherwise if the spaceship and the Earth both experience the cause a, why only the spaceship's time being dilated but not the Earth's?
• Secondly, and this is just the result of the above non-symmetry, to ensure TD does happen, we must always be able to see T ¹ To, if they ever reunite to their base environment Earth to compare their clocks. Otherwise if T = To, TD doesn't make sense.
These two conditions are to make sure TD can happen in its true sense.

I'll give some examples before talking about Einstein's equations:

• Suppose one day, one scientist claims temperature can cause time dilation, according to his equation: T/To = f(t) in which t is temperature. He says the colder an object, the slower its time would become. We test two identical clocks, one put in a fridge of 1000 C minus, the other remains outside at 15C, later the one from the fridge shows less time than the other one. So until further checking, we could say, yeah it's possible, as temperature is non-symmetric. If clock T is at 1000C minus, and clock To is at 15C, we cannot say backwards at the same time that T is at 15 C and To at 1000C minus, although there's only one clock actually moving in and out of the fridge. So the equation T/To = f(t) is temporarily accepted, as the situation is non-symmetric as far as temperature is concerned.
• Another day, another scientist claims gravitation can cause time dilation as T/To = f(g). It should be ok, too, since gravitation is also non-symmetric. Of course we still don't know what is f.
• Another day, another scientist claims distance can cause time dilation as T/To = f(s). He says the longer distance an object travels, its time would slow down. He says if you walk away 100 m, actually your time has already slowed down a bit, but the effect is too small to see, unless say, you travel to 1 million km. Now without checking his math, we still can say, it's nonsense. The simple reason is: distance is symmetric. When you're 100 metres away from me, I'm also 100 metres away from you. You say T/To = f(s), since it's symmetric, I can also say To/T = f(s), i.e. T = To. Why does time dilation only happen with you, but not with me? He might say the situation is not symmetric, in the sense only one person is actually moving. But if so, he should put (moving) instead of (distance) into his equation and makes it accounted for time dilation. And as long as he writes T/To = f(s), regardless whether it's a non-symmetric about temperature, acceleration, force, energy, etc,... it's still symmetric as far as (s) concerned, and therefore the equation is wrong. No time dilation would ever happen just because of distance.
The last example is exactly the same to Einstein's equations about TD and LC. v is symmetric. If A is travelling at v relative to B, then B can also be seen as travelling at v relative to A. If T/To = f(v), we also would have To/T = f(v) and that means T = To, i.e. there's no time dilation. Many would use acceleration to say it's not a symmetric situation. It's true, in a sense. As a same situation can be seen as symmetric under this category, but also not-symmetric under another category. But if we want to test our equation to see if time dilation is really caused by (v) as we claim, we can only test a situation where no other variables can cause non-symmetry except (v).

Regardless the situation could be non-symmetric about anything else, acceleration, force, vibration, temperature, gravitation, etc,.. as long as it's symmetric as far as v concerned, the equation T/To = f(v) is wrong. No time dilation would ever happen just because of velocity.

4. But what about all the tests so far with accelerated particles, the muons behavior, haven't they confirmed Einstein's equations?

No. They only confirm that time dilation can only happen due to non-symmetric causes like vibration, force, acceleration, gravitation, etc,... but never by v in uniform motion. I can use exactly the same tests to prove my silly equation that T/To = f(s), would you then believe me?

5. Whatever you say, I still don't believe you. Einstein's equation is mathematically correct. It's deduced from pure math reasoning. It cannot be wrong.

It's true that Math can never be wrong. I agree that Math is one of the most powerful tool to help us reason. But even though math is never wrong, let's not forget disasters are still happening in our world. Let's never forget humans can still be wrong. Seven astronauts got killed in the Challenger shuttle's explosion. What caused that? Math? No, math is never wrong. It's human's misapplication, misinterpretation, misuse of math. We give the computer a million tasks to check, and our Math says if all that million tasks correctly checked, the spaceship launch must be successful. It must be. But it still comes down to the human inspector to check if that particular task is ok or not. He ticks ok while he should not. The computer takes it as ok, and disaster happens.

And remember it's Einstein who said, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." That's why I never discuss about math in this book. The problem is never there, but in humans' hands. Like any powerful machine, regardless how wonderful and correct it is, a math equation can only work when humans know what that equation is for, what is T, what is To, what is v, when we can use it and when not use it. Without knowing how to, an equation is useless. I only say it's wrong in that sense. Now if you don't like that word, it's fine, let's change it.

5. How?

I'll give you this example, to show you how we can change it.

I'm walking with a friend in the park. We have the same heights. I notice whenever my friend moves away, I find him look smaller. I also look smaller to him too. But of course we know it's just a visual perspective thing, and that our heights are still the same. Now Einstein comes up and gives us this equation H/Ho = f(s) in which s is the distance from me and my friend. Say if we're standing 5 metres apart, f(5) would be, say 3/4. And then he's just left.

I first wondered,
"H/Ho = 3/4? What is that?"
"Height contraction equation, I guess?" my friend said.
"But what is H? What is Ho? Does that mean if I walk away 5 metres, when I come back my height would be 3/4 shortened?"
My friend would say,
"C'mon, idiot. It doesn't mean that. It just means if I walk 5 metres away from you, my height would look like 3/4 shortened compared to your real height. But the same would apply to you, if you walk 5 metres away, I would also find you look 3/4 shortened then. So the equation is still right."
"I see. So our heights after all, are still the same."
"Of course."
"So now what should I say H and Ho stand for?"
"Simple. If we call our real heights are H and Ho, and how our heights would look from that distance are H' and Ho', we would have H'/Ho = Ho'/H = 3/4. The equation is perfect, mathematically."
"But still H = Ho and H' = Ho'?"
"Of course."
"So why do you call it height contraction equation then?"
"Because our heights look contracted from a distance, don't they?"
"But I'm not interested in how our heights would look from a distance, I'm only interested if your real height coming back would still be the same or not? Can I use that equation to measure your real height when you come back?"
"No."
"Then what should we use that equation for? Why do you call it equation for height contraction when it's not for real contraction?"

Now let's go back to Einstein's time equation T/To = f(v), you'll see exactly the same argument can apply. If we call:

• T is time period recorded in the spaceship's clock starting from the spaceship's departure until its arrival to Earth,
• To is time period recorded on the earth's clock for the same trip (i.e also starting from the spaceship's departure until its arrival to Earth,)
• T' is spaceship's time period calculated from an observer on Earth using Einstein's equation during the same trip,
• To' is Earth's time period calculated from the astronaut in spaceship using Einstein's equation also during the same trip,
then the best thing Einstein's equation can offer, if we still want to say it's correct mathematically, is T'/To = f(v), To'/T = f(v), T' = T'o, and T = To. And it means it's not for real time dilation, either. So what should we call Einstein's equation then?

A misinterpretation of time dilation? Is that the word you'd like to change to?

6. So what are you suggesting me from all of this? If you're right, that means Einstein's equations are wrong. That means Professor Stephen Hawking is wrong. That means Professor Paul Davies is wrong. That means many other physicists, professors in the world are all wrong. Are you expecting me kind of believe in that sort of nonsense? Are you expecting me kind of believe in this stupid joke, that an idiot without scientific knowledge, without even pre-highschool math, use his own argument to challenge our modern physics and expect he can cheat some people? Are you really serious with this cheap ad? Are you really serious with this stunt show? Tell me who you are? What's your background? What's your qualification? What authority you have to write about Einstein's theory when you know you should go back to highschool and learn some more math?

None. I have nothing. I have no authority. I have no any qualification. I'm no one. And this book is not about Einstein's theory either. I wrote about Einstein in only one chapter in a book about sex, pornography and many other things. If that can give you a worse picture about me, and so help you find easier to trust our conscience and knowledge, then go on and do it.

In fact, just like a drop of water to the wide ocean, even I can prove Einstein's equations wrong, it still means nothing to his world. Relativity is much more than just that. Einstein is still Einstein the greatest physicist, together with Professor Stephen Hawking, Professor Arthur Eddington, Professor Paul Davies, and many other scientists, ... with their great contribution to the giant physics world which never I want to be in. I never dare. I never wish. It's not mine.

I have a friend, who is 19 and beautiful, and works as a prostitute. She has learnt all the right things in the school and still ends up working as a prostitute, feeling lost and confused. I have many friends who have learnt all the right things about math and relativity in the school, and still end up being idiots and confused about time. Why are we so confused? Something wrong with us? Or just something wrong with one or two postulates that we're learning? Great oceans seem the place for only genius and I never want to talk about. But only a few tiny drops of water blurring our conscience and knowledge, that I want to understand.

Sometimes I wish I could be born a bit smarter so that I could understand Einstein a bit better and never have to write this. God didn't grant it to me. He said whatever you have, take it and run with it. If an idiot is defined as someone who cannot understand genius, I can always pretend I am not, by just repeating what genius say and no one would ever know. I have chosen not to. And Einstein knows that. That's why he has said, one of a few things I could understand, see with your own eyes and feel with your own heart.

http://www.oocities.com/rainforest/6039
johndoan@hotmail.com