Muon’s time dilation

Before going into the story of cosmic ray muons, I suggest the readers to have a look at the following link to have a flavour of the stupidity of relativists.

Cosmic ray muons or high energy muons are produced at about 16000 meters above the ground as cosmic radiation from outer space collides with the atoms of the Earth’s atmosphere. Apparently scientists have observed that significant numbers of these cosmic ray muons (which are produced in the upper crust of the Earth’s atmosphere) survive to reach to the ground level. In other words a significant proportion of cosmic muons are able to travel a distance of 16000 meters in their life span.

But scientists from their experiments on laboratory muons, swear that muons live for only about 2 microseconds and travel at a speed of 0.9c. So according to them, a muon can only travel about 600 meters in its life time.  Then how could the cosmic ray muons, produced in the upper crust of the earth’s atmosphere, are able to travel a distance of 16000 meters and reach the ground?

The only possible explanation for this scenario according to the weird relativists is time dilation and length contraction.

But only science maniacs and relativity extremists will swear upon the above ‘facts’ on muon’s life span and speed and propose these highly counterintuitive notions like time dilation. Scientists have only noted the life span and speed of low energy muons produced in particle accelerators. How can the same be considered true for the high energy cosmic ray muons?

In fact, in the light of the above new findings why can’t we propose that muons can travel faster or live longer than what we knew of them?

Imagine that we have seen a boy traveling a distance of 100 meters in 10 seconds. We calculate his speed as 10 meters/sec. Now if we see his twin brother traveling 200 meters in 10 seconds, we wouldn’t say that the second boy has experienced time dilation or space contraction. Rather we would simply say that the second boy has run faster than the first boy. Or else we have to suspect that our measurement of time was not correct in one or the both scenarios. And same must be the case with the muons.

Relativists propose time dilation as if our knowledge about the life span and the speed of all muons is perfect and absolute. Under certain conditions (gravity, energy state, environment etc) why not a muon travel faster or live longer before it decays into the smaller particles. We know that electrons can travel at different velocities. Then why do scientists insist that all muons travel at the same speed, and introduce absurd notions like time dilation/ space contraction when they see cosmic muons traveling a much longer distance than the laboratory muons in their lifetime?

Muon’s time dilation is what one would propose in the given scenario if the theory of relativity was correct. Relativists resort to circular logic here i.e. they believe that relativity is true, so they imagine time dilation as really happening for the cosmic muons and then they claim their imagination of time dilation as proof of relativity. Thus relativity stands proven for them. Like this, relativity believers keep going in circles in every scenario that they claim as proof of relativity.

Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled 16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be their speed?

So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the universe is much better than relativity.

Particles travelling in Storage Ring Accelerators

Apparently when muons were made to travel at a very high speed (0.99c) in a large diameter ring accelerator at Brookhaven, they apparently experienced time dilation as exactly predicted by special relativity. And recently, scientists have apparently observed the same thing happening with lithium ions travelling in storage ring accelerators.

But muons travelling in circular orbits are actually in accelerated motion and not in uniform motion. We know that according to the religion of relativity, SR applies to particles in uniform motion and GR for particles in accelerated motion. (In fact, some physics prophets use circular motion to ‘illustrate’ the effects of GR: The Elegant Universe by Brain Greene). So if the stupid theory of relativity were to be correct, the particles travelling in ring accelerators must have experienced time dilation as predicted by the general relativity but not special relativity.

Go to Next Page

Go to Previous Page

Go to Main Index


  • Peter McMahon  On November 3, 2013 at 2:20 am

    I am very skeptical of time dilation theory and can show that the effect is an optical illusion, which can be demonstrated for an object travelling at right-angles to the observer using Pythagoras’s Theorem (like throwing a rock at a sign form a speeding vehicle.) If the object is travelling at .8C, & emits a burst of light as it passes, & light travels at 1C relative to it’s source, the sphere of light will expand around the object, & the light emitted at about 53 deg. to the rear will intercept the observer. The horizontal component of it’s motion (.8C) will null out the object’s motion, and the vertical component of the light motion, & the information it carries will be straight down at .6C, which agrees exactly with Einstein’s Equation.
    But you appear to have a couple of your facts wrong. From my research on the net, the distance they travel is about 6000m, not 16000, & take about 20uS, but supposedly live about 10x longer due to their speed.


    • drgsrinivas  On November 3, 2013 at 3:06 pm

      Few things are not clear in your thought experiment- for example, you mentioned that the object is travelling at 0.8C, but with reference to whom and in what direction? But anyway, if the light beam travels at 0.6C ‘vertically’, that destroys the law of constant speed of light and so the witch theory of relativity.

      About the figures, you may refer to

      But don’t bother about the figures- the fact that cosmic ray muons reach to the ground can’t be argued as proof of time dilation.
      Time dilation is not an optical illusion but is a delusion of the scientific crowd who hold the superstitious belief of the constant speed of light.


  • d f  On February 3, 2014 at 8:09 am

    —— Muons are produced at a range of altitudes, anywhere from 10k-20k feet i think. But you miss the point of the muon experiment: far more reach the ground than they should using classical mechanics. With classical mechanics, none of them should make it to the ground. Yet, they are seen. But when you apply relativity and time dilation, then the numbers add up. And this is not the only evidence for time dilation- not by a long shot.

    ————– there has NEVER been an experiment that has measured anything travelling faster than the speed of light. NEVER.


    • drgsrinivas  On February 3, 2014 at 6:23 pm

      We don’t need your weird religion to explain the observations on cosmic ray muons.
      As already explained, that can be easily explained if we assume that the cosmic ray muons live longer or travel faster than what you know of them.

      I don’t really think we will find particles travelling faster than light but even if we find one, as is the case with cosmic ray muons, you relativists will resort to the stupid propositions of space contraction or time dilation in that scenario and manage to distort even the most obvious evidence.

      Rest of your comments are not even worth mentioning here.


  • Aaron Do  On March 6, 2014 at 12:39 pm


    there’s a website called where the author gives an alternative explanation for the muon time dilation issue. He basically argues that its possible that the muons traveling down to earth are actually traveling much faster than the speed of light (SOL). He was kind enough to email me an explanation.

    He also points out that the reason that experiments never seem to calculate particles moving faster than SOL is because they use the relativity equations in their calculations. Such equations start with the assumption that SOL is the maximum possible speed, and therefore its impossible to get numbers higher than SOL using those equations. Perhaps scientists have actually observed higher than SOL particles several times, but they just didn’t know it…


    • drgsrinivas  On March 9, 2014 at 10:30 pm

      That’s true. The observations on cosmic ray muons can be explained either by assuming that they live longer than what we know of them or by assuming that they travel faster than the ‘SOL’. (

      Yes, the formulae of relativity are built upon the stupid assumption that light always travels at speed ‘c’ relative to every observer (including the ‘muon observer’ irrespective of its velocity). So the question of muons travelling faster than light doesn’t make sense to the insane relativists. Their weird maths doesn’t simply allow that. But of course, the muons are given the option of experiencing time dilation and space contraction as a consolation! And these magical phenomena allow the muons travel longer distance than light in the ‘same time’. That may make you wonder what the definition of velocity is. The stupidity of relativity is so straightforward but at the same time so difficult to convey, simply because it is so vast.

      Actually I don’t believe that ‘c’ represents the velocity of photons. Basically, whether it is photons or muons or other particles, I don’t buy the idea that particles travel at specific/fixed velocities. In our everyday world, we know that the rate of motion of a particle or body depends upon the sum total of all the forces acting upon it. Depending upon its mass, the energy imparted to it and the environment (Ether/ air/ water etc), the same particle or body may travel slower or faster.
      And the same thing applies to photons and muons. A muon may travel faster than ‘c’. A photon may also travel faster than ‘c’. But if everything else remains the same, it is unlikely that a muon can travel faster than a photon for the simple reason that it is more massive than the photon. (Of course I don’t believe in the scientific superstition that photons are massless particles).

      Also I don’t believe that waves propagate at specific velocities. If you ever have closely observed the water waves or tides in a sea, you would have noticed that all of them don’t travel with the same velocity. The higher the amplitude i.e. height of the tide, the faster it will travel. So the velocity of a wave depends upon its amplitude. I know this is vastly different from what we have recited since our school days and what our great physicists have taught us for centuries. I am sure you will appreciate that once I present my work on wave mechanics. And because the amplitude of a tide decreases as it propagates or gets scattered, its velocity also decreases.

      In the photon Ether model of our universe, I said that our entire universe is permeated by a sea of photons, and there isn’t anything called absolute vacuum. Any object moving though the space must move through this sea of photons and overcome the resistance offered by the Ether medium- so a moving body/ particle is ought to slow down with time in the absence of further energy input. Can you guess the consequence of this? Another great law that we have recited for centuries i.e. the law of inertia of motion falls apart.

      I will be discussing many such issues and exposing many scientific myths in classical physics and wave mechanics in my upcoming articles.


    • HAL  On May 29, 2015 at 3:37 pm

      Muon speed has been determined directly with time of flight method and is close to the speed of light. The authors claim this also proves the universal speed limit c.

      So the alternative explanation that muon speed may be greater than the speed of light is wrong. However, I don’t believe Relativity is true because there are a number of counter evidences.


  • 94niners  On June 20, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    There is a bunch of misunderstanding on some of the topics being discussed here. Take THIS for example:

    “But anyway, if the light beam travels at 0.6C ‘vertically’, that destroys the law of constant speed of light and so the witch theory of relativity”

    You and Peter McMahon are failing to take into account the skewing of coordinate systems. In other words, what you are doing is confusing SPACETIME with SPACE. It is a common mistake relativity noobs like yourself make, MR Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla.

    You too, Peter McMahon. You are confusing SPACE coordinate axes with SPACETIME coordinate axes. Jesus how is it that such an ELEMENTARY mistake is being made here?

    Also, regarding the neutrino experiment that supposedly had them moving faster than light. IT WAS FLAWED, as the peer review processed revealed. They had experimental error they did not account for. Case closed. Try again. Better ruck tomorrow.


    • drgsrinivas  On June 20, 2014 at 11:01 pm

      That’s right, we are confusing the ‘glitters’ on the body of your nude Emperor as that due to the sweat droplets, while your deluded ‘intelligent’ minds are able to ‘correctly’ imagine them as glitters embedded into his invisible magical costume!

      Dear ‘wise man’, nobody here is clinging to your experimental errors or swearing by your pastors’ FTL neutrino delusion. We don’t even believe in what your pastors swear as ‘correct experiment’, why do we bother about the errors which they have committed and also confessed about the same.
      (I know why your pastors have ‘confessed’ that ‘flaw’ — if they didn’t, that would screw up their own ‘goddess’ theory)


  • Marlin Pierce  On July 15, 2014 at 3:26 am

    Regarding your comment “Basically, whether it is photons or muons or other particles, I don’t buy the idea that particles travel at specific/fixed velocities. In our everyday world, we know that the rate of motion of a particle or body depends upon the sum total of all the forces acting upon it.”

    The Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect differences in the speed of light when they expected different forces were acting upon the light. They expected the difference to be due to Fresnel drag of luminiferous aether. However, the experiment demonstrated a constant speed of light irrespective of the different velocities of the observer.

    Einstein demonstrated through conjecture that if the speed of light is the same for all observers, and the speed of light is not additive to the velocity where the light originated, then a bunch of ridiculously unintuitive consequences follow, including time dilation, length contraction, and an increase in mass. As velocity approaches the speed of light, mass approaches infinity, and thus requires increasing amounts of force to accelerate, making it impossible to accelerate to the speed of light.


  • marlinpierce  On July 15, 2014 at 7:56 pm

    Scientists do not claim “muons live for only about 2 microseconds and travel at a speed of 0.9c”.

    Muons have a half-life of 1.5 microseconds. So out of every million muons, after 1.5 µs only half a million would remain, and after 150 µs, there might still be one muon.

    I did not find any information that muons always travel at 0.9c, only that cosmic ray muons travel about this speed (0.98c). I would not assume that laboratory muons move at close to the speed of light. Hence, the difference between laboratory and cosmic ray muons, not that they are a different type, but I would interpret the information that I have that the difference is laboratory observations were closer to rest than relativistic speed.

    This does not change your argument. Some editing to correct this information, and your argument is mostly the same.


    • drgsrinivas  On July 16, 2014 at 5:18 pm

      I agree with you, it was actually the half life of muons and not their exact life span that the scientists had measured. But to convey the gist to the ‘ordinary’ scientific minds, I have intentionally mentioned that as life span.
      As you have correctly mentioned, whether we take that as muons life span or half life, the argument remains the same. (Of course despite the simplification, many ‘scientific’ minds fail to realise the stupidity of the relativity religion and they continue to religiously swear by what their pastors preach).


  • cydonio  On September 28, 2014 at 7:58 am

    Hey Srinivasa, without maths and experiments your statements don’t prove anything


    • drgsrinivas  On September 28, 2014 at 10:02 am

      This is the usual argument posed by the educated half brains of the of relativity religion. The following should satisfy those religious half brains who don’t bother about logic but are obsessed about maths and experiments.

      Maths: 2muons + 3muons = 5muons
      Experiment: I have observed kites flying in the sky today. More over there are no dinosaurs.
      The above maths and experimental observations prove that relativity and time dilation are wrong.

      Are you satisfied now?

      The moral: If one resorts to stupid reasoning, any observation/ maths can be claimed as proof of any weird theory. That is the case with your stupid religion. What matters is not maths or experiments but how sensible one is while using the maths and how logical one is while interpreting the experimental data.


    • Galacar  On September 28, 2014 at 11:05 am

      To cydonio:

      Math? Math is no substitute for thinking! FAR from it!

      Here is what the genius Tesla had to say about that!

      Read and think!

      “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

      Nikola Tesla”

      Just don’t follow uncritically tne ‘crowd’ !


  • Galacar  On September 28, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    A very good example of mis-using math is the “Work Function”::

    W=F x d W=amount of Work F is Force and d=distance.

    Of course this can be used and is used to calculate the amount of Work done.

    No problem here.

    But over the years it, subtle, changed to a Work Detector!

    What is wrong with that? Well, suppose there is an object too heavy to move.

    One man could give enormous amout of work and energy so the man is

    exhausted after a feww hours. but the object hasn’t moved qn inch!

    According to the Work Function’ the amount of work would be “0”:!

    Of course that would be absurd and here we see the danger using math without

    any logical thinking or relations to the ‘real world’.

    Of course I have asked some would be scientists and guess what?

    They all agreed there was no work done!

    If that doesn’t show the stupidiy of academic science, I don’t know what does.


    • drgsrinivas  On September 29, 2014 at 6:23 pm

      The above ‘work equation’ is probably not the best of their stupidity. Many ‘scientists’ do realise that work is done in the above scenario (by deformation etc). Also they do realise that work is done when we just hold a body in the air without actually displacing it.

      In any case I don’t go with the physicists’ definition of work-


  • Galacar  On September 29, 2014 at 6:31 pm


    Maybe it is not the best example, but as I have stated I asked a few would be scientists and they agreed no work was done! I tried to explain but they didn’t ‘get it’!

    So, it is just an example of the many.


  • Galacar  On September 29, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    Btw my example as an example where people think that gravity doesn’t do any work as long as the distance is 0. One of the stupidest of sciences is gravity, because if it is a force then we are in a lot of trouble! So much to say about gravity, but anyway, it is in conflict with other physical laws.
    And the work functio was used to circumvent this kind of problems.
    Ah well, it shows how extremely stupid ‘modern science’ is.


  • hywel  On October 26, 2014 at 8:17 pm

    i take it you don’t believe in the theory of the invarient speed of light rel to all observers?
    neither do i.
    but, and help me out here, i thought that when muons are speeded up through particle accelerators they live longer, providing evidence of time dilation.
    is this a fact proved in an experiment?


  • Enn Norak  On October 27, 2014 at 7:10 am

    The above discussion has profound implications in cosmology. It appears that math-savvy cosmologists have hijacked the concept of infinite empty space and have endowed space with fictitious properties including the ability to expand like a balloon being inflated. Hence the currently popular theory of inflation where the universe possibly expands forever. Relativity allows us to explain illusions of observation but does not represent reality per se. Cosmologists have not reached consensus on the nature of the past, present, and future of the universe. The ultimate fate of the universe remains under investigation and I see relativity as probably hampering that investigation if we continue to treat illusions of observation as reality.

    Time dilation and length contraction appear to be nothing more than an attempt to ensure that the math of relativity agrees with the theory itself and that the results of certain experiments are consistent with theory.

    I’m not trying to revisit the “tired light” hypothesis of Fritz Zwicky way back in 1929. While Zwicky postulated that ancient photons have lost energy due to external influences such as collisions with molecules in space, or by moving thru gravitational fields during their long journey thru space, I suspect that an internal mechanism of photons is responsible for energy loss and our observation of redshift here on earth.

    Suppose there is minute hysteresis between the magnetic and electrical components of electromechanical radiation including light. Such hysteresis would result in a slow loss of photon energy in cumulative amounts that increase with distance traveled from distant stars.. Over billions of years, the cumulative redshift due to such hysteresis loss could be greater than any redshift from Doppler effects.

    If we are actually in the process of a big crunch and not in a period of cosmic expansion, we should observe a blueshift instead of a redshift. If redshift due to the above-mentioned hysteresis loss exceeds what is actually a blueshift Doppler effect, then there will be a net redshift even though we are actually approaching distant stars in our universe.

    By the way, Zwycky was correct that photons lose energy when they collide with atoms in space, at least to the extent that one photon in several million loses energy when by colliding with a hydrogen atom. Hydrogen atoms are sparse in space but, when photons travel distances measured in billions of light-years, most of them are bound to collide with a hydrogen atom just the right way at some point during their long journey.


    • drgsrinivas  On October 27, 2014 at 10:06 am

      It is not just relativity, we have to rewrite almost the entire physics from the basics- including wave motion, Newton’s laws, classical mechanics. And then we will realise why the idea of tired light isn’t weird. No wave or particle can continue to travel with the same velocity for ever.

      And contrary to what we have all religiously recited for ages, the velocity of a wave depends upon its amplitude. And the amplitude of any wave decreases as it propagates in space.


  • Galacar  On October 28, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    to hywel

    I even don’t trust so called ”proves’ from an experiment.
    I see it all a sheer propaganda.

    You see, there is big global conspiracy at work, no kidding!
    So much to say about that.But everything ‘official is completely wrong,
    or very very skewed.

    yes, all of it, politics, banking, physics, biology,media, medicine, and what not.
    But it is too much for here.


  • hywel  On November 3, 2014 at 8:56 pm

    drgsrinivas, re your link atomic clocks and time: i agree – environment dictates nature mass, so any clocking slowing etc is a pure mechanical process and nothing to do with time dilation.
    but my understanding of general relativity is that light and all emr is immune to gravity.
    gravity warps space and light travels through the space taking the path of least resistance.
    light propagates the way it does because because it is mass-less, therefore has no resistance to acceleration and gravity has no effect on it.
    is this how you see it?
    And, is there any evidence that light is not a constant – are their any experiments that show a variant speed of c in a vacuum?


    • drgsrinivas  On November 6, 2014 at 11:10 am

      hywel, first of all I don’t believe that light particles are massless. I have discussed about this in few places on this blog. Coming to the constancy of speed of light, it is so ridiculous an idea that even if there exists some experimental proof, we should just take that as proof of some inherent error in the experimental methodology and in the interpretation of data.

      Not only that I disagree with SOL, I don’t even believe in what our physicists preach about speed of sound. Much of the confusion actually comes from our physicists’ misunderstanding of wave motion. If you carefully observe the tides in a sea, you will note that water waves don’t travel with a fixed velocity. Waves of high amplitude travel faster and those of low amplitude travel slowly. So it is the amplitude which determines the propagation velocity of a wave. A wave’s amplitude decreases as it propagates in the medium and so is its propagation velocity. And then, a wave doesn’t propagate with the same velocity in all directions.

      Sound doesn’t actually constitute a wave but is a sensation that we perceive when our inner ear receives a specific pattern of energy stimuli via air waves, water waves, ‘bone waves’, ‘metal waves’ etc. The so called ‘sound waves’ travelling in water are nothing but water waves and those travelling in air are nothing but air waves. So there isn’t anything called a sound wave in reality. When a tuning fork vibrates in air, it produces air waves and when the same vibrates in water, it produces water waves. Both waves carry/ transmit the same patterns of energy signals and hence give the same sensation when they hit our sound sensor mechanism.

      And light is a sensation that we receive when ether waves strike our photosensitive retina. So a better way (probably the only correct way) of classifying different types of waves is by basing upon the medium: ether waves (light waves or EM waves), air waves, water waves, solid matter waves etc.

      And contrary to the traditional teaching, all waves are longitudinal waves and there aren’t really anything called transverse waves. What we see/perceive as a transverse wave (the ripple on the surface of a pond) is nothing but the surface manifestation of an underlying longitudinal wave.

      Just like water waves and air waves, ether waves (i.e. light waves) also must be ‘capable’ of travelling at different speeds i.e. as slow as 1mm/sec and as fast as ‘c’. Probably the properties of a medium decide the maximum speed limit of its waves. And ‘c’ may well represent the maximum speed limit possible in Ether medium.

      I believe that Logic is the most powerful tool in elucidating the mysteries of creation and understanding our universe. And Mathematics represents the ‘short hand’ of logic and should not be considered beyond logic.
      And it is the experimental observations which have to obey the logical predictions to prove that the experimental methodology is correct. If some observations seem to go against our known logic, there must either be a deeper logical explanation that connects the known logic with the weird observations or that there must have been some methodological /instrumental error. It should never be taken to indicate that our Nature is weird or to argue against logic. If Nature was illogical, then we could interpret any observation in any stupid manner and argue that as proof of any stupid notion!


  • Galacar  On November 4, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    to hywel

    If you study the works of Bruce Cathie, about an electromagnetic grid around the earth, the so-called earth grid, you can find out that there is a inverse relationship with gravity and speed of light,
    Very interesteing work AND if you read his work you will see that there is already a unifiied, albeit different then the academic one, theory and that nearly all we learn at universities, and hence at schools, is false!


    • hywel  On November 5, 2014 at 6:37 pm

      yes, I will thanks. if a clocks travels at a high speed its mass will increase; if you take it into a stronger gravitational field the clock will also slow down.
      what relativists see as time dilation could simply be explained by the effect of gravity/mass on the clock.
      not much different than throwing it the river and water have an effect on the clock.
      this could be explained to a child.


  • Galacar  On November 5, 2014 at 11:59 pm

    to hywel

    I really think the whole of REAL physics can be explained to a child!
    The work of Victor Schauberger shows this, This is what he said:

    “The majority believes that everything hard to comprehend must be very profound. This is incorrect. What is hard to understand is what is immature, unclear and often false. The highest wisdom is simple and passes through the brain directly into the heart”

    Viktor Schauberger”

    Don’t you love this quote? I am still studying his work and it is much more insightfull then the whole of academic physics! And I have studied physics, alas!
    of course he was scorned by the academic people! They couldn’t understand him!

    And you know what a very big flaw in ‘science education’ is? It is the fact that everything is isolated from everything else with as apotheosis the lonely disconnected atom.

    In the work of schauberg everything becomes connected and it gives beautufull insight
    into REAL nature.


    • drgsrinivas  On November 6, 2014 at 9:11 am

      Thanks Galacar, I really love that statement of Viktor Schauberger. Yes, real physics is never so difficult to understand and can be easily explained to children. And let me add to that, nobody can really understand a false theory unless one misunderstands it (of course one could also be pretending as in the nude Emperor’s story).


  • hywel  On November 10, 2014 at 10:57 pm

    Galacar and drgsrinivas,
    thanks, yes, i do love this quote.
    i am familiar with bruce cathie. He believes light has no speed, just acceleration and deceleration?? still scratching my head over that one.
    i am interested, drgsrinivas, why you don’t believe that light is mass-less. i always assumed photons were matter with no mass. if not it blows my theory (provisional) out of the water.


  • Galacar  On November 11, 2014 at 3:13 pm

    to hywel

    Are you familiar with the works of Bruce Cathie or have you studied it?
    As far as I know, i have studied at least all of his books, light stil has a speed, but it is
    inverse with gravity, but we are talking about harmonics here, that is
    the basics of his works.
    Everything is light because we live in a holographic universe.
    The funny thing in mainstream idoctri… oeps ‘science’ is, they even don’t know what light is but they use light to read their instruments, And that one is for starters!

    Now, may I also recommend the works now of Peter Bros, Higly Recommended!

    especially these two:

    “Where Science Went Wrong: Tracking Five Centuries of Misconceptions”


    “Light: Replacing Three Centuries of Misconceptions”

    Very very good works BUT you have to read them slowly because you will bump
    into your own unconscious dogma’s and assertions., I know I did and I still do.

    After reading these I am rather certain that you will never look at ‘science’; the way you do now.

    science’ is really a very very deep and dark and sinister form of mind-control!
    So, the ones who went to their science classes at university really has
    to unlearn this programming!

    Hope this helps!


  • Ray Gallucci  On June 11, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    I am no fan of relativity and time dilation and enjoy your hypotheses. I recently developed a paper on a non-relativistic explanation for the unexpectedly (by relativists) high number of atmospheric muons reaching sea level that builds off of some of your ideas. If you would like to see it, I can e/mail to you if you send me an address. I can be reached at


  • Junk Detritis  On August 18, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    I believe that expanding space travels faster than the speed of light – apparently, milliseconds after the big bang, the size of the expanding space was much larger than light could have crossed in the same time. Are there other examples of “things” travelling faster than SOL?


  • bernes  On August 20, 2015 at 9:46 pm

    about your drawing and the question,”But why not the photons traveling at the much faster speed have the same funny experience?”
    -the difference between c and 0.99 c is negligible,rather then “much faster” as you present it.
    -the photons do have the same funny experience.In your example you don’t seem to differentiate between the time we observe,and the time which passes for fast moving objects. The 2 microsecond lifespan is the time we observed muons at the state of rest,so without time dilation.
    So give the photon in your example a stopwatch and he will travel more then 600 m in 2 microsecond.


    • drgsrinivas  On August 22, 2015 at 11:58 pm

      I salute to your extreme faith in the religion of relativity. I agree that instead of saying ‘much faster’, I could have simply said ‘faster’!

      Just use one tenth of that critical thinking, and you would surely realise how stupid is your religion. Be careful not to mess up reference frames. To calculate the velocity of a body, you wouldn’t measure distance in one’s frame and time in someone else’s frame. Give another go now!


    • bernes  On September 20, 2015 at 8:58 pm

      Truly,relativity isn’t my religion and I’m always being critical and questioning everything.
      According to your drawing,you are the one messing up the reference frames.
      Your muon travels 16000m(our reference frame) in 2 ms(muons rf.)As i said before,the 2 ms is muons lifespan observed at the state of relative REST,and not at 0,99c. The muons created in the laboratory didnt travel at 0.99c to experience time dilation.


    • drgsrinivas  On October 13, 2015 at 7:12 pm

      Bernes, because you claim that relativity isn’t your religion and that you are always critical of things, I give you another chance.

      Please pay attention: To know the velocity (v) of an object with respect to us, we need to know the distance (d) travelled by the object as per our scale and we need to know the time (t) elapsed in our clock. That is, both distance and time measurements must be taken as observed by us from our own reference frame and not what is ‘felt’ by the object in its frame. (And that makes sense because velocity of an object is something that we speak from our frame of reference)

      If you think the distance travelled by the cosmic muons is 16000 meters and if you believe that they travel at 0.99c with respect to us, then that implies that their mean lifespan is 52 microsec in our frame. The fact that muons only lived for 2microsec in a different setting isn’t a reason to ignore our observations on cosmic muons and to promote some absurd religious beliefs.

      If you insist that muons’ mean lifespan is only 2 microsec, then that implies that cosmic muon’s velocity must be about 25c. Again, the fact that this goes against the superstitious belief of constant speed of light isn’t be a reason to mess up with space and time. Rather that should open up your eyes and make you abandon the religion of relativity.

      It is as simple as that.

      The concept of ‘relative rest’ is one of the several absurdities inherent in the relativity religion that make the believers cling to that stupid religion. Just try to find out the answers to the following and surely you will realize that.

      1) What is the velocity of laboratory muons with respect to us? How do we know that? Isn’t it that we deduce their velocity by measuring the distance and life span from our frame?
      2) What is the mean life span of laboratory muons according to our clock/ our frame of reference?

      (Muons are always at rest in their own frame of reference whether it is cosmic muons or laboratory muons. Saying some muons as at relative REST only exposes one’s skewed thinking)

      Simple rule to follow is: always stick to our frame. Once we manage to know things from our own frame, we can go on to talk about the same/predict things from others’ frames! Good luck!


  • Stephen Holland  On November 8, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based. I came to this conclusion by observing that galaxies spin, planets spin, suns spin and that atoms must spin also. The universe is divided into fractal dimensions, like a series of Russian dolls. These dimensions extend to infinity both outwards and inwards directions forever.
    The universe is made of only one basic sub-atomic particle. This particle has 3 states – left spin (clockwise), right spin (anti-clockwise) and no spin (black-hole). The left and right spin could be interpreted as positive and negative, while the no spin particle could be interpreted as a black –hole or neutron.
    These 3 forms make up space and matter. Space is made of alternate left and right spin aether particles which I would call ‘ethons’. The no spin ethon forms the centre of all matter and atoms (neutrons). Neutrons could be regarded as black holes which attract aether particles into rotation similar to how planets rotate around a sun. Aether particles spin at the speed of light.
    The speed of light is a dimensional signature of the sub-atomic world. In the sub-atomic world, things happen very fast and don’t obey our laws of time and space. Light is a product of the sub-atomic world and travels at light speed because the ethons are naturally rotating at this speed and are thus conveyed like a conveyor belt. The ethons in space are not attached. They only engage one-another when light passes or they are united by a no spin ethon or neutron. When light passes through aether the ethons engage, as do the cogs in a clock or watch and cause the wave to move at the speed of light. Thus, light is two dimensional. It has both spin and wave energy.
    The universe is energy rich. Aether particles spin at the speed of light. When 2 aether particles approach a large body like a sun, they are pushed together and stop spinning. This releases their energy. Thus – E=MC squared.
    Using this concept the forces of the universe can be unified. Thus, spin becomes the common denominator which unites matter, light, electricity, gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces.


    • drgsrinivas  On November 8, 2015 at 6:33 pm

      I was a kind of with you until you started talking about speed of light. It was only from that ‘speed of light’ came all the misunderstanding and mess in physics (including the wild equation e=mc squared).

      Basically light waves behave no differently from water waves. Water waves are nothing but waves traveling in the water medium. Similarly light waves are waves traveling in the light medium i.e. Ether. Just like how water waves travel at different velocities, light waves also travel at different velocities. I have discussed about all this on this blog. So ‘speed of light’ is a myth (and so is its derivative mass/energy equation).

      Anyway, I agree with what you have said in the first two paragraphs. And that’s more or less what I have explained here and elsewhere on this blog.

      ‘The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner—‘- very true. Don’t allow the weird propositions of ‘modern physics’ come in the way and hijack that rational mind.


  • Mario Fusco  On November 9, 2015 at 11:42 am

    “have a look at the following link to have a flavour of the stupidity of relativists”

    This is quoted from the first paragraph of this article. It is called a “slur”, or an “argument ad hominem” (attacking the person instead of the argument.) It is a tactic not generally used in serious scientific discourse. It is generally used when the propounder of an idea has no logical legs to stand on, totally misses the point of his interlocutor, or is hopelessly ignorant of the field. All of these appear to be true of Mr Gonuguntla. One also suspects a certain amount of frustration on his part because no serious physicist will even bother refuting his arguments, and because physics marches successfully on with relativity as a central and much-verified theory at its core.

    We live in a great democratic country. Anyone is free to express an opinion about anything. But it is at times like this that one cannot help but feel that this kind of forum represents the Achilles’ heel of democracy.

    Anyway, you should all Google Mr Gonuguntla to verify his qualifications for holding forth authoritatively about relativity.


    • drgsrinivas  On November 9, 2015 at 6:59 pm

      I have allowed this comment just to expose the split mindset of the believers of the stupid religion of relativity.

      While he criticized me of making ‘argument ad hominem’, all he did was exactly that in all his ‘scientific’ reply. Apart from making ‘argument ad hominem’, and crying at me for calling his crowd stupid, he never bothered to say why my arguments against his stupid religion are wrong.

      When I say ‘the earth is round’ and go on to explain why, you can’t blame me as making ‘argument ad hominem’ and attacking the earth personally. Similarly when I say ‘relativists are stupid’ and go on to explain why, it doesn’t mean that I am personally attacking your crowd. It is just that I have put the hypothesis first before going to prove the same by providing with detailed rational analysis of available data.

      If you want to really disprove my hypothesis and claim yourself as sane, then you must try to address each and every statement I have made against your crowd and counter each of them with rational arguments.

      The fact that your religious prophets didn’t bother to comment upon what I have explained here doesn’t in any way undermine the rationality of my arguments. Better for them if they don’t comment here- doing so would destroy their religion.

      For your kind information, it doesn’t require a qualification to argue against superstitious beliefs. Rather what one needs is an independent rational mind, not indoctrinated by some particular religious school. You don’t need to have a qualification in christianity from a church to argue against the superstitions in that religion. Same is the case with your physics religion!

      If it is not for democracy and freedom of speech, your ‘scientific’ crowd would have been punished long ago for propagandizing your absurd religious beliefs as science! You can’t demand for double standards in democracy!


  • Galaar  On November 9, 2015 at 6:36 pm

    To Mario Fusco

    A group is attacked which seem to be indeed hopelessly stupid.
    I know that all this is by design.
    Personally, I don’t see anyone as stupid, but as a genius.
    But most are broken by the ahum educational system.
    Now how else can you name a group that is deliberatly
    dumbed down? smart? lol, of course not !
    Furhermore no one is individually attacked.

    Furthermore at the end, you make the mistake of
    “the logical fallacy of appeal to authority”. And, the way I see it,
    also used as an ad hominem.
    Because everyone who hasn’t his qualifications……

    I know people in authority who reject relativity on logical grounds.

    It is all a hoax mate. To keep us from using energy the right way.
    What is the right way? Free of course!

    start studying Tesla’s work instead of the scribbles of the village idiot einstein!

    oeps. yes that was an ad hominem. 😉


  • Stephen Holland  On November 22, 2015 at 5:24 pm

    If nature appears to be illogical, then, I will bet that some scientist has made a mistake.The universe is made of only one particle which has 3 states. Left spin, right spin and no spin. If you pull out the plug in a bath tub which is round, you will notice that the water starts spinning. The spinning increases in speed as the water diminishes. A larger or expanding hole will also increase the spinning speed of the water. Thus, a galaxy is like a bath of water and an atom is also like a bath of water. The no spin particle creates a dimensional hole in space which matter falls into. Sub-atomic particles spin at the speed of light. This is so, because light travels at this speed. The sun gets its energy from sub-atomic particle spin. That’s logic.


  • Galacar  On November 22, 2015 at 7:37 pm

    To Stephen Holland

    Everytime someone writes ‘That;s logic’ is really a red flag to me.
    Just ask some people why things are ‘logical’ and they only mean
    that they have heard something a trillion time, hence it seems ‘logical’
    to them (look up e-prime!),

    But eh? Actually I have no idea what you want to say with this?
    And as a beside, do you know the sun is in reality cold?
    Just think a liitle about it.


    • Trevin  On August 19, 2016 at 2:04 am

      Galacar, how do you explain earth’s heat without the sun’s heat? Drgsrinivas, how do you explain the sun’s heat if you do not believe that matter can turn into energy? I am not refuting you or approving of relativity; I am just asking questions.


  • Muthukumar  On January 28, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    Dear Srini,

    How can we explain polarization if we do not accept that light is not transverse?


    • drgsrinivas  On February 4, 2016 at 9:18 am

      Dear Muthukumar,
      I am yet to do my research on polarization of light. In the mean time, have a look at the following link which appear to discuss that aspect.

      Thank you for your interest and I will surely come back to you later.


    • drgsrinivas  On February 12, 2016 at 11:58 pm

      As expected, physicists’ understanding of polarization is as bad as their understanding of wave motion.

      Basically as I have explained elsewhere, there exists only one type of waves i.e. longitudinal waves. The so called transverse waves that we see on the surface of a pond only represent the surface manifestation of the underlying longitudinal waves.

      A wave proper is actually a 3-dimensional phenomenon (hemispherical or umbrella shaped in case of a point source) which moves away from its source as it propagates in the medium. We can imagine a ‘transverse wave’ as something like the horizontal section of that 3-dimensional phenomenon or wave proper. In other words, what we see as a ‘transverse wave’ or a tide on the surface of a pond merely represents the ‘cut edge’ of a much larger, submerged 3-dimensional phenomenon.

      ‘Transverse waves’ being a surface manifestation, they lend themselves for direct observation and whatever we observe of the surface waves holds true for the underlying longitudinal waves because the former is nothing but the surface manifestation of the latter.

      I am proposing that light waves are nothing but longitudinal waves (or ‘umbrellas’) traveling in the cosmic ocean of Ether (just like the sound waves traveling in water or air medium). And as is the case with sound waves, the ether particles oscillate to and fro as light waves propagate in the ether medium.

      Now how do we explain polarization of light waves? Very simple if you understand what actually happens in polarization.

      Imagine a point source that generates a continuous train of circular waves (of course, they are actually spherical waves if we take into account of the submerged ‘longitudinal’ part) in a pond of still water. As the waves propagate in the pond, they remain parallel to each other and hence don’t cross or interfere with each other. This is what happens in polarized waves: all waves lie parallel to each other and remain in harmony as they travel. The waves don’t cross each other at any point. (In 3-D space, polarized waves may be imagined as series of parallel arranged umbrellas)

      Now imagine a cluster of point sources and each generating a train of waves. Obviously waves from one point source cross or interfere with those from other point sources as they propagate. And this is exactly what happens with unpolarized waves. Different waves interfere with each other in a rather random or haphazard manner.

      These unpolarized water waves become polarized if we make them pass through a slit. Also, as waves propagate in the pond, they become polarized to some extent i.e. they tend to arrange themselves parallel to one another.

      The above explains polarization in simple and clear terms. Of course, a lot more happens at a deeper level and I will come to that soon.

      Actually the explanation provided by the physicists for light polarization is rather messy (as is always the case in physics). They first describe light waves as transverse waves with electrical and magnetic fields oscillating at right angles to each other. Then they ignore the magnetic field component and imagine light waves as having only the electric field component. Thus ‘by convention’, they depict EM waves as having only electric field component when they talk about polarization. Now it becomes easy for them to explain how the light waves with vertically oscillating electric fields pass though the vertical slits in the polaroid filter. The magnetic field which supposedly oscillates at right angles to the electric field, apparently doesn’t hinder the passage of light waves through the slits. Why? Well, our physicists decided to ignore the magnetic field, so it doesn’t exist for them! So the horizontally oscillating magnetic field can’t stop the light waves from passing trough the vertical slits! Isn’t that a great explanation?

      Our physicists don’t seem to realize the difference between ‘conventional’ and ‘real’.


  • Brayton  On May 2, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    that comparison of the two twins is flawed. You are forgetting that the muons are decaying. So if the first boy is going 10m/s and has an explosive collar set for 10 seconds, he will go 100m before dying. His brother however experiences time dilation and his collar is slowed down. To be honest, that was a horrible example of trying to prove time dilation wrong.


    • drgsrinivas  On May 2, 2016 at 10:50 pm

      You are forgetting that the boys are also dying (Of course their life span is much longer than the muons of your relativity mythology!) LOL!
      Sorry, despite your best effort, you failed to save your stupid religion of relativity. I don’t blame yours as a particularly horrible argument. Every argument that tries to save relativity is equally horrible. Yours is neither less nor more. Better luck next time!


  • pie  On May 11, 2016 at 7:27 am

    The cosmic ray muon’s time is running slower at near the speed of light. This is why it travels a longer distance 16 thousand meters in 2 microseconds, and hitting the ground. Do we become part of the slower time experience once we look at it? (duality of viewing changes the outcome)

    So if nobody noticed, or looked at a cosmic ray, it would revert back to it’s 600 meter distance in 2 microseconds.

    What does not make sense is that if we were able to view the rocket traveling at near the speed of light, it would appear not to be moving very fast because we are viewing it from our time on earth. So why does this situation chance once we see the cosmic particle from our upper atmosphere, apparently as if we were also traveling at the speed of light to the particle making it to the ground?


  • Mysteryland  On September 19, 2016 at 8:29 pm

    Whats your view on block universe theory of time?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s