Category Archives: Faculty of Ridiculous Science

The toppers’ theory

Maths is ultimately based upon logic. Then how can maths make weird predictions that go against logic? How can anything contradict its own basic foundation and still be valid?

If our logic gets affected by our brain’s ‘misinterpretation’ of things that we see and perceive in our universe, why not maths get similarly affected? Why scientists swear upon the counterintuitive math models over logic?

Should the lay people blindly believe in all the stupid theories put forward by the ‘top’ scientists.

The stupid theory of ‘Toppers’

Occupants on the top floor of a complex multi-storeyed building theorize that the building actually stands upon pillars from the sky. They insist that what people see on the ground is not real. They preach that the truth is actually in the sky, and they, being on the top floor, could ‘appreciate’ it from very close.

They preach that the actual reality is vastly different from the illusions that people experience on ground. We the unlucky people on the ground who can’t reach to the top floor may be tempted to believe in what the ‘intelligent’ toppers preach. We might wonder “how could such a complex building stand at all, if what we see on the ground is not real?” but few will dare to question these ‘celebrities’ on the top floor.

The toppers argue that people on the ground are not only unlucky but are also ignorant. “How can people who can’t even climb to the top floor challenge what we preach? Obviously to experience the truth, people will have to come to the top floor. If they can’t, they should just believe in what we the intelligent toppers preach”.

Of course to reach to the top isn’t an easy task. One must please the celebrity professors on the top floor so that they pass a divine rope for one to ascend. And one must continue to listen to what they teach, and keep chanting what they preach. If at any time one argues against what the professors preach, one will lose the divine rope and fall to the ground only to get seriously hurt and humiliated. So one must be very careful and ‘diligently’ nod to them all along. Obviously by the time one ascends and reaches the top floor, having religiously chanted for years, even a hard core nonbeliever will get transformed to appreciate the ‘true reality’ over there in the sky and accept that ‘ground reality’ was an illusion.

If an occasional person, who manages to climb up to the top floor but retains the ‘ground logic’, argues against the intelligent clout and doesn’t acknowledge the sky logic, this ‘extremist’ will be thrown out of the ‘celebrity stage’ so that his cry will never be heard again. Darwin’s law of ‘survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence’ applies at all levels of civilisation. So no one would dare to commit such self destructive blunders of arguing against the ‘intelligent’ crowd unlike Galileo.

This is how scientists are produced in our modern scientific society. So no wonder that stupid theories like relativity and quantum theories survive and dictate science.

Relativists’ Logic

While relativists believe that light, time and space do not obey commonsense and logic, they expect Ether to behave as per their primitive sense, and muon to travel as per their logical extrapolations.

While they don’t bother about logic when it comes to believing the weird mathematical predictions, they use ‘logic’ to draw conclusions from experiments to support their weird thinking.

Why can’t Ether behave vastly different to the relativists’ logical expectations and why can’t a muon live longer than what they ‘found’. Why do we think our previous calculations, of muon’s life span and velocity, should be universally correct? (That to in a world where there is no absolute time and space!)

Anyway relativity has established itself as a strong religion and it is difficult to challenge its beliefs. Those who challenge stand the risk of isolation, humiliation and suppression. The situation is not very much different from what Galileo and Copernicus had faced when they questioned the then religious beliefs.

Scientific journals out rightly refuse articles that contradict this ‘established science’. If someone tries to explain how various experiments were wrongly interpreted as supportive of relativity, scientific society either refute them as mere claims by people who can’t grasp the complex maths or expect them to provide the ‘experimental’ proof with weird formulae. (Those who challenge relativity can’t even continue their career in science, let alone undertaking the costly and ridiculous experiments like digging the earth through and through!). So basically scientific society as a whole stopped using commonsense and is obsessed with magical maths and ridiculous experiments.