Relativists argue that their theory of relativity is backed up with strong mathematics. Let’s have a glance at the weird maths that all the relativists are proud of, before we go on to ‘construct’ some equally ridiculous mathematics.
Relativistic Addition of velocities: Imagine two reference frames A and B. Also imagine that frame B (observer B) is moving away at velocity ‘v’ with respect to frame A (observer A). Now if an object in frame B moves with velocity u′ in the same direction, what would be the velocity (u) of the object with respect to an observer in frame A?
I know it sounds very complex because it is in the language of the relativists. And this is how they pose as highly intelligent and confuse and scare the readers. Let me put that in a much simpler way-
Imagine a train moving at velocity v with respect to an observer standing on the platform. Inside the train if a passenger is running with velocity u′ in the same direction as the train, what would be the velocity (u) of this passenger with respect to the observer standing on the platform?
Commonsense tells us that the velocity of the passenger must be equal to v+u′ with reference to the platform observer i.e.
u = v+ u′
But apparently that is not true according to our Goddess of Relativity. Here is the weird formula of adding velocities-
One may wonder from where the c2 comes. According to the relativists, ‘c’ is the speed of light (SOL) in vacuum (3×108 m/sec). The whole purpose of this weird formula is to ‘prove’ that SOL is same to every observer.
Now imagine a space ship moving towards a distant planet with velocity 0.5c (v) with reference to us. If a light beam leaves the spaceship with velocity ‘c’ (u′) towards same planet, common sense tells us that the light beam must be travelling at 1.5c with respect to us standing on the earth. But if we use the above relativistic velocity addition formula, we will be ‘surprised’ to realise that the velocity of the light beam remains as ‘c’ even with respect to us.
It is hardly mind blowing because the above relativistic formula was built upon the weird assumption of constant speed of light. So obviously we will get the same ‘c’ for speed of light even for observers moving at different velocities.
From the same stupid law of constant speed of light follow the time dilation and space contraction equations.
Time dilation: Relativity preaches that moving objects/clocks experience time dilation which is given by the formula
t’ is time run in the moving frame
t is time run in the resting frame
‘v’ is the velocity of the moving clock with respect to the resting clock and ‘c’ is the speed of light in vacuum
To know how the stupid folk have arrived at this stupid formula of time dilation, read Photon Clock and the Maya of Time Dilation.
Length contraction: the same theory predicts that moving objects experience length contraction which is given by
where l’ is the length of an object measured by a moving observer and l is the length of the same object as measured by an observer at rest with the object.
Stupid assumptions can be supported by stupid Maths
Stupid model 1: We can assume- The sum of any two natural numbers equals 1.
To ‘prove’ the above, I can formulate weird maths. For example let us add the numbers ‘x’ and ‘y’ as per this weird model-
We know this formula of adding numbers is weird, and so is the addition of velocities in relativity.
Stupid model 2: We know from common sense and experience that 2×3=8 is not a correct mathematical statement.
But we can make it ‘true’ if we make some weird assumptions like 3=4 or 6=8.
But these assumptions are wrong, hence any model built upon them will also be wrong (even if some experiment appears to support the model). Same thing applies to the mathematics of Relativity which was built upon the irrational and weird assumption of constant speed of light.
Of course, at times a weird model may appear to have some strong observational support if one is not diligent. Apart from relativity, here are few such models.
Absurd Model 3: One may assume that the actual value of the numbers decrease as we ascend- i.e. 1>10>100>1000. A theory based upon this weird assumption obviously yields weird predictions that contradict our commonsense.
It might appear to ‘correctly’ explain few things/observations in our everyday life- For example this model might explain why older people despite ‘more’ age perish while younger people with fewer years survive better. It might also explain why 5mm grass weeds withstand winds better than 1000mm taller trees. But just because this model ‘correctly’ explained some observations in our Natural world, we can’t throw away our commonsense in favour of the absurd theory that is built upon an absurd assumption. (Similarly just because relativity explained Mercury’s perihelion shift, it can’t overthrow all our commonsense)
Absurd Model 4: ‘X’centric theory: One may assume that Mr X is in absolute rest in this universe and everything else in this universe moves with respect to Him. I am sure the spoilt mathematical brains of modern physicists can ‘weave’ an ugly but strong mathematical model to support this absurd belief. The observation that he doesn’t go to the coffee vendor to drink coffee, but the coffee itself comes to his table may be argued as proof the ‘X’centric theory. Also the fact that he doesn’t go out to meet people but people themselves come to his office can be argued as additional proof. If any body notices Mr X walking out of his office and tries to argue that as proof against the ‘X’centric theory, we can easily discard that as mere delusion of the unintelligent observer. We can argue “it was actually not Mr X who went to the market but it was the space-time which moved around Him and gave the impression that He moved”. But why should we discard what we have actually seen and imagine what we haven’t really observed? Well because that’s what our ‘X’centric theory (which has strong mathematics and also been proven beyond doubt by many observations) predicts and dictates. And we can argue “any kind of motion of Mr X is simply prohibited by the theory”. That is exactly how the stupid relativists argue and prove time dilation for the cosmic ray muons.
Absurd Model 5: Snail Relativity: One may propose that a snail is the fastest moving thing in this universe. One may state that it’s speed ‘S’ represents the speed limit of the universe. One may also add- the speed of the snail is constant to all observers irrespective of their motion. For those who demand for supportive maths, the same mathematics of relativity should suffice (one has to just substitute ‘S’ in place of ‘c’). And one just needs to make appropriate provisions for time dilation and space contraction similar to those of relativity.
If you have noticed a snail moving only 1mm in one second while a rocket moved 10000mm in the ‘same’ time, you must inference that the racket had experienced time dilation and space contraction. As the rocket travels at close to the speed of snail, its time dilates enormously. So, in the reference frame of the rocket, it only moved less than 1mm in one second. ”You are nobody to argue against what the rocket feels or experiences. After all, your reference frame is very different from that of the rocket and hence you can’t use your commonsense. Only mathematics can predict what happens in the rocket’s reference frame” the stupid theorist might argue just like how our relativists do.
But before we dispose our commonsense and logic and believe in the counterintuitive predictions of any new theory, two criteria must be satisfied
1) The new assumption upon which the new theory is based (e.g. constancy of speed of light) though appear weird at first, must have been arrived at by logical deduction. Or/and
2) It’s weird assumption must have been proven beyond doubt by experimental data and no better alternative explanations must exist for the observed data that appear to support the weird assumption.
Relativity fails in both the criteria.
Of course relativists have a superstitious belief in relativity and its weird predictions. These mesmerised brains believe that their superstitions have been proven beyond doubt by many experiments. But one doesn’t need a very high IQ to realise their distorted interpretation of the experiments that they swear as proof of their weird theory.
Go to Next Page
Go to Main Index