Long Beach 2010

PROCEEDINGS of the NPA

How Acceptance of Relativities Is Misled by Textbooks

(c) 2009 By Cameron Rebigsol

The following content is part of the article Relativitys Length Measurement Inconsistency, published in the Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 17th Annual conference of NPA, 23-26 June, 2010.

Normally, in deriving the equation set for Relativity, a textbook will begin its mathematical deduction with the following equation set:
x' = a11x + a12y + a13z + a14t y' = a21x + a22y + a23z + a24t z' = a31x + a32y + a33z + a34t t ' = a41x + a42y + a43z + a44t

Putting everything together, the textbooks come to an equation set that reads
x' = a11(x vt) t ' = a41x + a44t x2 = c2t2 x'2 = c2t'2

(5 a-d)

(1 a-d)

The task of (1 a-d) is to find all as in believing that they will help bring out a function, or functions, that corresponds all the spatial and temporal coordinates between two moving systems. With many supplemental conditions, actually equations with various reasons, (1 a-d) finally boils down to
x' = a11(x vt) y' = y z' = z t ' = a41x + a44t

(2 a-d)

The introduction of (3 a, b), or equivalently, the introduction of (4 a, b) makes it indisputable that (5 a-d) is conditioned to be solved in the following way: no matter how time develops, each observer must see no relative movement between the origin of his own frame and the center of the spatial sphere enveloped by the propagation of light. In other words, the origin of ones own frame and the center of the light sphere coincide forever in each observers inspection. Before calculation is further performed, we need to analyze how much validity an equation set so conditioned, i.e., (5 a-d), can enjoy. Mathematically, the introduction of (3 a, b), namely
x2 + y2 + z2 = c2t2 x'2+ y'2 + z'2 = c2t '2

If all as remain as unknowns, equation set (2 a-d) is a set with three unknowns but only two relevant equations. To overcome the difficulties in finding a finite solution set, the textbooks introduce new information with
x2 + y2 + z2 = c2t2 x'2+ y '2+ z'2 = c2t '2

, is to say that the spherical

(3 a, b)

Given that y=y and z=z are redundant and they eventually reduce to zero, the useful information from (3 a, b) actually only contains
x2 = c2t2 x'2 = c2t'2

(4 a, b)

space occupied by light starts its expansion at t=t=0. As far as the x axis and x axis are concerned, light must propagate along them in both the positive and negative directions, with speeds assumed equal with respect to each of these axes, of course. The assumed movement of x axis in the inspection of the x observer should make him believe that the x axis and light both move in the

Long Beach 2010 2

PROCEEDINGS of the NPA

same direction pointing toward the positive side on his x axis. Looking toward the negative side, the same assumed movement should make him see that the light wave front and the x axis move in opposite direction between each other. Distance between the light front and a certain point on the x axis, such as the origin, certainly continuously changes in the inspection of this x observer. How would relativity guide the observer to calculate such distance change in the identical situation? Here is a quoted paragraph from 2 of the Relativity paper of 1905: Let a ray of light depart from A at the time tA, let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time tA. Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that
tB tA = rAB c v rAB c+ v

same observer should set up their relationship according to (7). In both situations, time is quoted from a clock next to the observer. Therefore, for the movement in the same direction, the x observer will obtain a distance r+ that the light wave front describes on the x axis with time interval of (t-0) and establishes
r+ =t c v

(8)

For the movement in the opposite direction, this observer will obtain a distance r that is described by the light traveling on the x axis and establishes
r =t c+ v

(9)

Subsequently, this observer must have

r+ r =t= c v c+ v

(10) (11)

or further

r+ c v = r c + v

(6) and
t 'A tB =

(7) [Both (6) and (7) are numbered by this author] where rAB denotes the length of the moving rodmeasured in the stationary system. The ray of light depart from A so picked for the observers calculation is only one of the infinitively numerous rays that form an expanding sphere. Right at the very moment of emission, the location on the stationary system where point A matches must be envisaged by relativity as the center of the sphere of the light. Such center will not move with the moving rod in the inspection of the stationary observer; Relativity allows no one to disagree on that. This quoted paragraph further tells us that for the light and a frame that an observer sees moving in the same direction, relativity will set up the relationship between distance and time and speed according to (6). If they are found moving in opposite direction, the

Please note once again: The center of the light sphere is not allowed to move with r+ or r , which are equivalent to rAB in (6) and (7), for (11) to be formulated in the inspection of the stationary observer. This observer must be stationary to both his x axis as well as the light sphere center. How would the observer who is stationary to the x axis evaluate the situation? To this observer on x, with v=0 concluded from his own frame with respect to himself, and with the center of the light sphere to be claimed at a point equivalent to point A in (6) or (7), which is a point motionless to him, (6) and (7) together require that he must see r+ = r = ct (12) with t being quoted from a clock from his x axis. This relationship leads to
r+ =1 r

(13)

It does not matter how the concept of length contraction of a moving rod may force each observer to believe seeing r+ (or

Long Beach 2010

r

PROCEEDINGS of the NPA

) with different values. Such contracting multiplication factor cancels out in the ratio of
r+ r

. Therefore, the exclusively

x2 = c2t2 x'2 = c2t'2

unique and perfect sphere that brings up (3 a, b), or , must force the two

observers to bring (11) and (13) together and have

c v r+ = =1 c + v r

(14)

This relationship can be satisfied only if v=0; no other value of v can satisfy it. Conversely, when the observer riding on the x compares the relative movement between the light wave front and the x axis, believing the origin of his own frame to be the center of the light sphere, the similar argument will repeat itself once more in his inspection just like what happens to the observer on the x axis: merely ending up with a speed value of v=0 between him and the x axis. Therefore, a sole agreement of zero speed, but no others, between the two observers is inescapable if both observers are to detect (I) a perfect sphere of space occupied by the light propagation and (II) both origins of their own frames to be the center of the light sphere. Whatever solution set that is led by (2 a-d), subsequently (1 a-d), is only good for speed of v=0. In other words, the introduction of
x2 + y2 + z2 = c2t2 x'2+ y'2 + z'2 = c2t '2 x2 = c2t2 x'2 = c2t'2

Now things are apparent: the treatment of introducing a sphere of light to make (1 a-d) solvable must only implicitly force equation set (1 a-d) to be solved with a predetermined speed value of v=0. v=0 is a necessary and sufficient common condition for each observer to conclude a perfectly spherical space occupied by light propagation in his observation while insisting his own frames origin to be the center of the sphere. When the solution set that is good only for v=0 is applied to situation of nonzero speed between the frames, the application is merely a creation before mathematical work that conforms to acceptable rule is accepted. That an equations set, which is good for only zero speed between two frames, is forced to be "applicable" to situations of non zero speed has escaped the attention of quite a few generations of scientific workers. No explicable reason seems to be readily found as to why this happens. Possibly we have all been swinging between too much uncertainty and too much confidence in exploring an unknown world.

, or equivalently

, just simply kills any nonzero

movement between the frames.