Xinwei Huang

Most people do not have the insight of Copernicus and Galileo so they can not find special theory of relativity is wrong. This is a fable that reflects the history of scientific development. Biologist Robert found a fly lying on the table. He coughed so the fly were scared to fly. Later, he caught the fly and cut off its wings and placed it on the table. He coughed again but the fly did not fly away. So he concluded that fly heared sounds depend on it's wings, and the wings of fly is equivalent to person's eardrum. Smith, another biologist was against this interpretation. He believes that fly should also hear sounds depend on it's ear. However, he could not point out where is the ear of fly. He also could not explain why fly without wings did not respond on sounds. Other biologists repeated the Robert's experiment at different times, different places, different environments with different sounds such as cough sound, alarm sound, explosion sound. They found the same results as Robert. So they agreed that many experiments show that fly heared sounds by it's wings, and the theory that all animals heared sounds depend on ear was wrong. They also believed that Robert changed the biology, he was the greatest biologist in human history.

Most people think there is no experiment against the special theory of relativity. This is because most people do not in-depth analyze these experiments. If we carefully analyze the current experiments, we will find there isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity! Instead, there are some experiments against special relativity. Please see "Can the Principle of Constant Light Speed be Proved by the Michelson-Morley Experiment?" http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/46855-can-the-principle-of-constant-light-speed-be-proved-by-the-mmx/ The Mossbauer experiment is not reliable. The fiber gyroscope can detect the Earth's rotation rate, and the experiment of two-way time transfer between east and west tell us that observations from the Earth's surface, the speed of light in different directions are different. I do not agree with Lorentz ether theory. It is also flawed. Truth is still very far away from us.

There isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity! It’s said that special relativity can be used to interpret phenomena such as mass increase of high-energy electron, life-time dilation of high-energy meson and so on, so it’s assumed as the experimental evidence to support special relativity in the field of physics. However, Lorentz’s theory can also be used to interpret these phenomena which will be considered as the experimental evidence to support Lorentz’s theory in the field of physics if there is no special relativity. For example, in 1938 Ives and Stilwell first detailed spectral measurement of the hydrogen atom and proved that movement results in a time delay, which is assumed as the experimental evidence to support special relativity. But Ives fought against special relativity throughout his life, and repeatedly emphasized that the purpose of this experiment is not to test special relativity while the same equation can be obtained using Lorentz’s theory. He used Lorentz’s theory and his experimental results prove the correctness of this theory. Therefore, these experiments can’t be assumed as the experimental evidence to support special relativity. If someone must believe these phenomena can prove special relativity, then Ptolemy’s followers also say that the earth is the center of the universe because the sun rise in the east and set in the west every day. What experiment can serve as the experimental evidence to support special relativity? Only these experiments that are able to prove the two hypotheses of special relativity, one of which is the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity, can serve as its experimental evidence. What does the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity mean? Does it mean the velocities of light in all directions in one media are the same? No, it doesn’t. If it did then the velocities of sound in all directions in one media are also the same, so we can make hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity. Does it mean the movement of source does not affect the velocity of light? No, it doesn’t. If it did then the movement of source does not affect the velocity of sound, so we can make hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity. What does it exactly mean? It exactly means that the velocity of light is constant when we observe the same beam of light in vacuum in different inertial frames. However, is there any experimental evidence to support this hypothesis? Let us analyze the so-called experimental evidences proving the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity. 1) Closed optical path experiments (including Michelson-Morley experiment, Essen’s experiment, Jaseja’s experiment, Silvertooth’s experiment, Trimmer’s experiment, Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, etc.) and unidirectional optical experiments (including Cedarholm’s two masers experiment, Champeney’s Mössbauer effect experiment, Cialdea’s two lasers experiment). They show that the velocity of light is isotropic on the Earth’s surface. Can these experiments prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity? If they could, then the velocity of sound is isotropic on the Earth’s surface and the hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity is true too! 2) Moving light source experiments, including the double star observation, Majorana’s rotating mercury lamp experiment, Michelson’s rotating mirror experiment, Kantor’s rotating glass experiment, Luckey-Weil γ-radiation experiment, Sadeh’s positron-electron annihilation experiment, Fillippas-Fox π-meson decay experiment, etc. They show that the movement of light source does not affect the velocity of light. Can these experiments prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity? If they could, then the movements of train, plane and bullet do not affect the velocities of their sound and the hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity is true too! Many people believe that Luckey-Weil γ-radiation experiment, Sadeh’s positron-electron annihilation experiment and Fillippas-Fox π-meson decay experiment can prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity. They think that velocity of movement of light source is v and the velocity of the light from the source is c relative to light source, while the velocity of the γ photon measured in the ground reference frame is c but not c + v, which proves the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity. In this regard I want to ask how do you know that the velocity of theγ photon given out form microscopic particle is c relative to the source. Have you measured it? You can only guess it. But what is the basis of this guess? It remains the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity. They consider the proposition need to prove as the basis, which is a logical error. Have the velocities of the sound given out from high-speed train, plane and bullet been 330 m/s relative to the source? Of course, it’s not! Therefore, how can you identify that the velocity of the γ photon given out form microscopic particle is 30 million km/s relative to the source? Moreover, these experiments can be explained with the ether theory and can be considered as the experimental evidence to support this theory! Please note: The velocity of the same beam of light in vacuum wasn’t tested in different inertial frames in all experiment above! The all experiments above were carried out on ground which is an approximate inertial frame, while the observer doesn’t position in another inertial frame which is moving relative to the ground to examine whether the velocity of light is c or not. Can these experiment carried out in only one inertial frame prove the same results will be in different inertial frames? According to the analysis above, we can conclude that there isn’t any experimental evidence to prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity and there isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity!

I do not intend to discuss these two paradoxes. Because they have been discussed for many years in China. I'm tired. If a person is smart enough, after read my paper, he should recogniz that relativity is wrong.

Please see http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51328

The lever paradox and the elevator paradox are more challenges to relativity than the twin paradox and the submarine paradox. The lever paradox was raised by Xinwei Huang about in 2001. It has be discussed for many years in China. The conclusion is that special relativity can not explain the lever paradox, unless the introduction of the gravitation magnetic field hypothesis. So Xinwei Huang raised the elevator paradox about in 2004. The elevator paradox has almost no discussion because even the gravitation magnetic field hypothesis can not explain it. To solve these two paradoxes, I put forward my own theory. It can also explain the phenomenons that be explained by the special theory of relativity. But derive the same equation, it is much simpler more than the special relativity. Moreover, it has no all kinds of paradoxes. It has been published in America already. The reviewer’s opinion was “This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint,not these comments.” Please see http://api.ning.com/files/Cn30KBw0PdPD145Cp*DSr1B-*fhMX9oA-LfOH4wrwMwTz5zT5iV-lqXdK6SS*3l*JEwfPnskCXpPOoIa1-ujcmqb8qAmMDYV/mypaper.pdf or http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//SE1.pdf

I am sorry. I am very busy recently, and my English is not good, I understand your question difficult. I think I have said everything. But there are still many people can not recognize that relativity theory is wrong. I hope they can think deeply. I believe that eventually people will think I am right.

Many people can not understand why two beams of light can return to point O at the same time. Michelson-Morley experiment let us know that the speeds of light in each direction are equal. The question now is whether their journey is equal after gyrating a circuit they return to point O. Many people think that they are not equal. Because of the rotation of the planet, the optical path of the light in counter-clockwise is less than that of the light in clockwise direction. Although I remind that they analyzes this issue in the inertial system that never rotates together with the planet, which completely ignores the results of the analysis on the planet's surface. But they turned a deaf ear. They always impose the result analysing from the inertial system to the planet's surface. I had to ask them to think about another question. Please see api.ning.com/files/3-g0fF2x84RbBfYC8UIGakiS8f-yOI6UQyKWGQlgb9NJNhUPgZIouG6NcGyUGptucq1IiJHjztF2ogup7IVW1X884suQTr6J/file.JPG Viewing from the rotating disk, is the person's journey about 100 meters or about 300 meters ? Of course it is about 100 meters. Here, why not impose the result viewing from the inertial system to the rotating disk? Many people think that two beams of light can not return to point O at the same time because Sagnac effect. They said Sagnac shows effect up in GPS satellites. Yes, Sagnac effect shows up in GPS satellites. However, please note, the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is not C, but the C±V. However, the light speed relative to the planet is not C±V, but C. Sagnac effect exists because the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is C±V. If the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is C, does Sagnac effect still exist? My question is to reveal this. I think that the two beams of light can return to point O at the same time. If I am wrong, why the PRA's editors and reviewers do not point it out? Do they not understand physics ? They attacked me in the past published papers, not this paper. This shows I was right.

It seems that you still do not understand my question. That's the amount of phase that accumulates due to the revolution about the sun. Please note that 300,000 is the speed of light and 30 is revolution speed of the Earth around the sun.

This question is very simple. t1=2πR/(C-V) t2=2πR/(C+V) t1/t2=(C+V)/(C-V)=(300000-30)/(30000+30)≈0.9998 This is why the counterclockwise light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time discrepancy about 0.02%.

what is your math for the .02% timing differential? It looks like that you have not understood what I was saying. My paper has said that the maximum linear velocity of rotation on the hypothetical star's surface is equal to the linear velocity of Earth revolution, about 30 km•s-1. Can't you count it? Analysis from the inertial system without rotation, they can not return to the starting point at the same time. But most people have not realized that analysis from the planet surface is correct. Only a few people agree with the latter. Although my paper has explained why, but most people still do not understand. This is a very difficult task. I do not know how to do to make most people aware their wrong.

Hi swansont, I think you do not understand what I say. Please note, not the Earth, but the planet. The link pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/d6c698c33153555f2d41488b9769ec82.jpg is also failed. I do not know why. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hi vuquta, Yesterday I said, if you think that the counterclockwise light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time discrepancy about 0.02%, so the planet's surface is divided into innumerable equal parts, it also takes them unequal time to go through each part; ie clockwise and counterclockwise speeds of light are unequal. Do you think so?

Dear swansont and vuquta, The link pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/eb38a9f9bbe7be0a8e3358dcba1e4da0.jpg is failed. Please see pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/d6c698c33153555f2d41488b9769ec82.jpg Please seriously consider, if you think that the counterclockwise light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time discrepancy about 0.02%，so the planet's surface is divided into innumerable equal parts, it also takes them unequal time to go through each part; ie clockwise and counterclockwise speeds of light are unequal. If it were true, then the ether wind with velocity of 30 km / s could be detected by Michelson-Morley experiment. Do you think so?

Are we far from the topic? I think we should return to this question. Please see pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/eb38a9f9bbe7be0a8e3358dcba1e4da0.jpg Can they return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit ? Please note that the principle of constant light speed is just a hypothesis. This hypothesis is based on MMX above. According to this hypothesis, the counterclockwise light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time discrepancy about 0.02%. But according to the MMX, they can return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit. Which is the credible result derived from the hypothesis or the experimental ? Of course, the credible result is derived from the experimental rather than the hypothesis. Many people think that the counterclockwise light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time discrepancy about 0.02%. Please note that if the planet's surface is divided into innumerable equal parts, it also takes them unequal time to go through each part; ie clockwise and counterclockwise speeds of light are unequal. If it were true, then the ether wind with velocity of 30 km/s could be detected by Michelson-Morley experiment. But has it ever been detected? Some people try to explain why MMX can not detect the ether wind with velocity of 30 km/s. They think it is reasonable and understandable. However, they did not realize that this is against the theory of relativity. Why? They think that the ether wind with velocity of 30 km/s should exist, but the MMX can not detect it. In other words, MMX is invalid experiment. This is equivalent to say that the MMX can not prove the principle of constant light speed!

If the earth did not rotate, of course the Sagnac signal did not exist. Also, if the area of the enclosed loop of the light travel were smaller, would you expect the same amount time accumulation? Yes. Professor Wang's experiment tells us that even if the straight line Sagnac effect also exists. Please see pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/90c6e3416e98735215c8a094f01f5917.jpg