The Truths of Space-time Contractions of Special Relativity

  •  Xiaochun Mei    


This paper points out that there is no any experimental evidence for the length contraction of a moving object in special relativity. It is just a theoretical prediction based on the Lorentz transformation formula. Einstein put forward the concept of simultaneous relativity in order to explain the length contraction. In this paper, an example called Ji Hao's bridge-breaking paradox is provided to prove that this kind of paradoxes cannot be explained by simultaneous relativity. A completely symmetric method is introduced to prove that the famous twin paradox is unsolvable. The time delay experiments of special relativity, such as the life time of μ meson and the atomic clocks moving around the Earth are discussed. It is proved that time slows down of a moving clock does not exist too. It is a misunderstanding to use the lifetime of μ mesons to prove the time delay of special relativity because μ mesons decay prematurely due to strong collisions with other nuclei in the Earth's surface atmosphere. What calculated in theory is the time difference between two atomic clocks flying east and west observed in the stationary reference frame of the Earth's mass center. But the measurement of time difference is on the surface of the Earth. Because of the symmetry of motion speed, there is no time difference caused by the motion speed between the two atomic clocks observed on the Earth’s surface, so the experiment of atomic clocks moving around the Earth is invalid. The experiment is also suspected of fabricating experimental data. The conclusion of this paper is that the space-time contraction of special relativity and its relativity cannot happen in real nature, time and space are absolute concepts, and the Lorentz transformation cannot be correct.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • ISSN(Print): 1916-9639
  • ISSN(Online): 1916-9647
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: semiannual

Journal Metrics

Google-based Impact Factor (2017): 3.90
h-index (November 2017): 17
i10-index (November 2017): 33
h5-index (November 2017): 12
h5-median (November 2017): 19

Learn more