Why is it that even after 90 years, no scientist could clear the confusion?
I will tell you why the confusion arose. That is because the word 'event' has not been defined at all. The great Einstein himself did not define 'event'. He just said something happens at a particular point in space at a particular time and that is an 'event'. The 'event' is defined by the space and time co-ordinate only. But nobody cared to explain what the 'event' was, because mathematically it is defined by 'X' and 'time' co-ordinates.
The Lorentz transformation explains how 'X' and 'T' change, so people all over the world thought why you should know what the 'event' is. It may be the birth of a particle or the death of a particle, it may be anything. That is the reason why they did not solve the problem.
How could you solve the problem, that too after 56 years?
Yes, I will tell you how I solved it. I have been thinking of this problem for 56 years. It was only last year that the solution came to my mind, that too in a flash. You may ask, why did it take 56 years? The answer is very clear. Because once you know the solution, you will understand why this has eluded me till now. See, it is like having a bunch of 10,000 keys and all of them are almost alike but one of them alone is the correct key. How would you trace it?
You have to try out all the keys one by one?
See, it is almost impossible, is it not? That is why it took 56 years for me. It also took a lot of time before I had the courage to say that by 'event' you always mean the crossing of two points. When one point is moving against another, the crossing of the points is what is called an 'event'. Any 'event' which you see in the world can ultimately be interpreted as the crossing of two points. After 92 years, for the first time the word 'event' has been defined as the crossing of the points.
Now, why do points cross? I added one more idea. That is, every point is the end of a rod. Therefore, the fundamental concept is the crossing of rods rather than crossing of points. Once you start in terms of rods which are crossing, we understand the changes and all problems are simultaneously solved.
How did you come to the conclusion that points are not just points alone but they lie at the ends of rods?
That is because a point is always included in a rod as it is the end point. But a rod concept is not included in a point. A rod is a much better concept because according to Einstein, a rod shrinks when it moves, the shrinking will not be there if you are only thinking of a point. So, you must think of the rod as a fundamental quantity and not a point.
What I did was, I took two rods, one stationary and the other moving. What I now say is, the moving rod has the same length as the stationary rod. This is the newest idea put forward in 92 years. Nobody in the history of physics has ever thought that a moving rod can have the same length as the stationary rod.
People know that when two rods of equal length move, they contract. But what they did not think of was a moving rod has the same length as a stationary rod. When such a crossing occurs, the end points are coincident simultaneously because the lengths are equal. But if you sit on the moving rod, that rod will look stationary while the other rod which was originally stationary now looks moving.