Twenty questions only Einstein can answer? (6 pages)


Have you ever read a book about relativity, cannot understand, and feel like an idiot? Don't worry, you're not the only one. If Bill Gates, Madonna, Bill Clinton, Pete Sampras, Michael Jordan, Tom Cruise, Spice girls, and millions other ordinary people ever feel seriously interested about Einstein's relativity, they would feel exactly the same. The best way to handle that kind of beanotheridiotphobia is to pretend you're not. Just say, yeah I love it, it's great, I agree with everything he said, etc,.. and you'll be accepted. Or there is another way, if you're genuine, grab hold any Physics professor who you think really understand Einstein, very politely and sincerely ask him few of the following questions, you might find the truth quicker one way or another, if you're lucky.

Also, let's remember Einstein is always right about his math. Math is never wrong. The purpose of these questions is only to understand what Einstein says about his own equations T = To /÷ (1 - v2/c2) and L = Lo ÷ (1 - v2/c2). What is T? What is To? What is L? What is Lo? And what is v? That's all we ask, so we can correctly apply them. No any physicists would bother wasting time to answer these gabbage, partly because they're only stuff for kids in primary-school. Trouble is, not only kids but no one, except Einstein, can truly answer them. Don't believe it? Test yourself.


1. A 100-metre-long spaceship travels at the speed 0.5c relative to an observer standing on the ground, what is the spaceship's length measured by the ground observer? Can we say Lo = 100m, v = 0.5c? So L = 100xf(0.5c) = 86 m? On the other hand, what is the spaceship's length measured by the astronaut himself according to his ruler? Still 100m?

2. A 100-metre-long spaceship travels at the speed 0.4c relative to an observer standing on the ground, what is its length measured by the ground observer? Can we say L = 100xf(0.4c) = 92m? Also, can the astronaut still measure his spaceship's length as 100m ?

3. A 100-metre-long spaceship travels in three different uniform stages, firstly at the speed of 0.5c, then later to 0.4c, then later to 0.2c, what is its length measured by the ground observer? Is it always the same or different from 86m to 92m and 98m accordingly? Also, can the astronaut still measure his spaceship's length as 100m?

4. In three above occasions, after the spaceship has landed back to the airport, what is its length measured by the ground observer then? The same or different to its original? Can we say v = 0, so L = Lo.f(0) = Lo = 100m?

5. In three above occasions, there's another 100-metre-long spaceship left stationary at the airport, can its length be measured by the moving astronaut using the same equation? Would its length be measured exactly the same to questions 1, 2 and 3? †Can we say the situation is symmetric as far as uniform motion is concerned then?

6. In three above occasions, is the spaceship's 10-metre height measured different at all by the ground observer if the spaceship always travels horizontally? What happens if after a period travelling horizontally, the spaceship flips upward but continue travelling in the previous straight path with its length now becomes height, would its length still be measured as 100 metre by the ground observer from then on?

7. In three above occasions, during the uniform flight would the astronaut see any difference of all objects' shapes inside the spaceship regardless which way he turns them, given Einstein's first postulate says no way we can tell, see, measure, or calculate which one is moving or stationary in uniform motion?

8. If the astronaut takes polaroid photos of all inside objects and even the spaceship's length with a long-arm camera outside and send them by light signals to home, would the Earth observer find or measure any changes of objects' lengths in those photos (given the photos taken while the camera is moving at the same speed as the spaceship, i.e. stationary relative to the spaceship)?

9. If the Earth observer also takes photos of objects around and sends to the spaceship by light signal, would the astronaut see or measure any changes of Earth objects' shapes in those photos?

10. Having asked all that, a kid makes some following notes:

Having noted all that, that kid might decide, "I don't want to use Einstein's complex equation. I want to make a simple calculation that, all objects' length remain the same in uniform motion regardless of what speed they're travelling, i.e. L = Lo." What disaster his calculation might cause (apart from that he must be failed for his Physics exam)?

11. Imagine the distance between NewYork and Melbourne is 1 light hour (300,000km x 3600). A supertrain continuously travels between two cities at the speed of 0.5c. Can we say it would take approx. 2 hours for the train to complete one-way trip NY- Melbourne (ignoring the accelerating periods), or 4 hours for a two-way trip NY-Melbourne -NY, based the ground observer's clock?

12. According to Einstein, when an object moves, its time slows down. How long does the two-way trip last for according to the moving supertrain's clock? Can we use Einstein's equation to calculate it? Would T be 3.5 hrs or 4.5 hrs?

13. Suppose Michelson is staying in NewYork, and Morley is travelling on that train, and they both want to carry out the same 1887 experiment again, but separately this time. We already know the result at NewYork station, that regardless how Michelson turns the apparatus, he always finds the speed of light always the same. What happens with Morley with his test inside the supertrain travelling in uniform motion at 0.5c, would he find the same result?

14. Let's put a simple figure for it. Michelson and Morley try to measure the time period required for a beam of light projected, then travel in a certain number of different paths, and back to its projector. Suppose that total time is always 1 minute. No matter how they move the apparatus, they always find it 1 minute for that beam of light to complete its full trip on the apparatus, according to their clock. If Morley repeats exactly the same experiment with the same apparatus in the moving train, how long does it take for the light to complete its full trip now, according to Morley's clock? Can we use Einstein's equation to calcultate that T? Would T be less than one minute? If yes, is it contradictory to Einstein's first postulate which says there's no way, no any test can help you to find out whether you're moving or not in uniform motion, and even contrary to the real Michelson-Morley 1887 test's result? If no, then why no? Why can't we use the equation with To = 1 minute, v = 0.5c, so T has to be different?

15. Let's use a camcorder to film Michelson while he carries out the test at NewYork station. Let's say we would film everything in one-hour tape, including Michelson works at his apparatus, when he smokes, takes a cup of coffee, with his clock on the wall and even Elton John's cd music playing in the background. †Michelson and Morley have both watched that video tape hundred times at home, and they always find the tape finish after one hour according to their clocks. Now when Michelson says goodbye to his friend, he gives Morley the tape so Morley can watch during his boring 4-hr long NY - Melbourne - NY trip. The question is, how long would Morley find that one-hour tape last for during the trip, according to his clock? One hour or not one hour? Similarly to question 14, remember Morley has watched the tape hundred times at home, and he always finds it last one hour according to his clock, now if he finds the tape last less than one hour on his clock this time, or Elton John's music sounds different pitch this time, would that mean he can use that difference on his clock as a way to tell he's moving and even to calculate what speed he's travelling at, and that contradicts with Einstein's first postulate and even Michelson-Morley 1887 test?

16. If that one-hour tape also lasts for one hour according to Morley's clock, then 4-hour tape filmed by Michelson would also last 4 hours to Morley's clock in the train. Compare this with the answer to question 12, is it fair to say using Einstein's TD equation to calculate T as dilated time physically recorded in Morley's clock at the end of Morley's trip is a misapplication? In fact, did Einstein ever suggest we could use his TD equation to calculate time of an object recorded on its own clock?

17. As TD and LC go hand in hand, T in Einstein's TD equation has to be applied exactly the same way as L in LC equation. Therefore, similar to questions 1, 2, 3 & 4, a period of 4 hours in the supertrain can be measured as 3.5 hours on the observer's clock, and 4 hours at the station can be measured as 3.5 hrs on the supertrain's clock. But as far as uniform motion is concerned, according to Einstein's first postulate and Michelson-Morley experiment, everything will run exactly the same and no clocks can show any physical differences at all at the end of the trip, so both clocks would show the same reading of 4 hours. Is it true or not true?

18. Let's see things under the opposite view. Let's say during the boring trip, Morley also takes a camcorder to film himself while watching Michelson's one-hour tape on TV. He starts filming at the same time the video replaying, and he films everything inside the train, his apparatus, his TV screen, his clock on the wall and even Elton John's cd music in the background for exactly one hour according to his clock. When playing back the two tapes on two TVs, he also finds them last one hour. When he gets back to NewYork, he meets Michelson and they both go into the station to watch the two tapes. How long would Michelson find two tapes last for according to Michelson's clock? The same one hour?

19. Whatever anwers we give to questions 15 and 18, would they always be the same as the situations are completely symmetric as far as uniform motion is concerned?

20. Having asked all those questions, a kid might note as followed:

Having noted all that, that kid might decide, "I don't want to use Einstein's complex equation. I want to make a simple calculation that, all objects' time remains the same in uniform motion regardless of what speed they're travelling, i.e. T = To." What disaster his calculation might cause (apart from that he must be failed for his Physics exam)?


Can you answer all those above questions? Do you think your teacher can? Would his answers be the same as yours? If you put those questions to different physicists who claim they understand Relativity, do you believe their answers would be the same? Even if you ask only one physicist, don't ask all questions at the same time. Put some today, and some others tomorrow, and next day go back to the first questions, you'll see they start to change their minds. And why is that? Is that because so far no one really knows what Einstein meant T when he wrote his equation? People use it whatever way they want, not knowing they in fact have misused it. It's a misunderstanding, misinterpretation and misapplication. And that's the whole point we want to raise in those pages, Einstein's relativity on fire again, Interview with Einstein, The end of Einstein's time equation.

Everyone loves science-fiction. And nothing wrong with that. I talk to a kindergarten kid and he told me there's greenhole in the universe that once you fall in you'll never run out of toys. And I believe him. Talking about dreams, I can believe the unbelievable. Talking about science-fiction, I believe anything can happen in future. I believe in time dilation, time machine, wormholes, space-curvature, parallel universe, blackholes, even greenholes, etc, ... I believe in future we can put time in a box, with a card, and send to someone to make him or her live a bit longer! In fact, without dreams in science-fiction, our science would not know where to go. It's science's job to make true all our dreams in science-fiction. If it can't, it fails.

In that sense we always welcome any scientific theory attempting to make true our dreams. But talking about science is talking about reality. About equations, formulas, numbers, tests, evidence, logic, and reason. Science has to face our strictest scrutiny, and has to answer all our challenges. Did Special Relativity answer all our questions about time? Has it ever made definition to what is time, before talking about time dilation? And that's where confusion starts. We thought Einstein's equation was the answer to time dilation. But it has failed due to its symmetry. Many scientists know that. They know acceleration is not the perfect excuse against Einstein's equations symmetry as they know we're talking only about uniform motion, and Einstein's equations are exactly created for it. But people love time dilation so much, and they think Einstein's equation is the only answer we must have to time dilation, so they have to keep it by all means, even by distorting, misusing their variables' meaning to apply it wherever whenever they want, even when it doesn't fit. They think if we don't accept Einstein's equation, that means the end of time dilation. But it's wrong. There could be hundred other non-symmetric ways we're yet to know in the future can help us reach real time dilation. But if Einstein's time dilation equation has what it has claimed, it has to answer all questions about time dilation it has created itself. Can it?

People talk about an alternative theory has to prove itself before Einstein's theory can be challenged. And it's pity. A princess is not happy with her marriage, do we have to find her another perfect husband before she's allowed to say she is not happy? What happens if we can never find another perfect prince, does our poor princess have to stay forever in her troubled marriage, and pretend forever she's happy?

Einstein's answer to time dilation by combining two postulates is a wrong marriage in Special Relativity. The two postulates don't get along well. Scientists have long known all those troubles with this marriage. And they have tried long enough to get it work, by ignoring contradiction, looking only at the good side, and even covering up those discontent, hoping problems would go away. But do they go away? No, they keep coming back. (see Anti-Relativity Resources, Dissident Group Against Special Relativity, Related Information) Each time a dissident speaks up, he is called an idiot if he disagrees, he must be stupid if he does not understand Einstein, he must be talking nonsense if he cannot close his eyes to see beyond common sense, and if he cannot provide a perfect alternative theory, that means relativity is still perfectly right. That means there's no problem, everything is perfect, everyone is happy, and you must learn to believe in relativity even though you haven't fully understood it and no books could ever convince you. 90 years after the marriage, two sides are still arguing over exactly the same thing. Same excuses, same problems, same answers, same questions, same explanations, same puzzles, same arguments, same disagreements, same insults, same skepticism, same defense, same ignorance, same understanding and same misunderstanding.

Possibly never can we find a perfect theory better than Einstein's relativity, but if it's not perfect, why not at least let someone say it? Why not let the princess say the truth, that our marriage has some problem, I'm not happy, and I want to be free?

Time to divorce?


Sex, Communism & Einstein
A challenge to human's conscience and knowledge
John Doan


1