Special Relativity (SR)

Constant Speed of Light

Einstein’s special relativity (SR) was built upon the assumption that speed of light ‘c’ is constant to all observers irrespective of their relative motion.

Despite no logical or experimental basis, Einstein had convinced the scientific crowd that this constancy of speed of light (SOL) is a law of nature and not just his assumption. I will explain later where and how Einstein had gone wrong and arrived at such a weird conclusion and how the mesmerised scientific crowd carried on with the same.

To get a gist of how weird is this assumption of ‘constant SOL’ – let’s take an example of a train moving at 100kmph towards east.

  1. A stationary observer standing on the platform measures the train’s velocity as 100kmph.
  2. An observer moving in the same direction as the train (i.e. east) at 50kmph will measure the train’s velocity as only 50kmph with respect to him.
  3. An observer moving at 50kmph towards west (in the opposite direction) will measure the velocity of train as 150kmph.
  4. An observer inside the train will measure the train’s velocity as zero i.e. with respect to him, the train is at rest.

This is what common sense tells us- different observers measure different velocities for the same moving body (whether it is a train or a ball) depending upon the state of motion of the observer.

But apparently, that is not the case with light photons. Relativity preaches that light always travels at the same speed ‘c’ irrespective of the state of motion of the observer. Imagine that we throw a beam of light towards the Moon. Imagine that the light beam travels at speed ‘c’ with respect to us standing on the Earth. Apparently the light beam travels at the same speed ‘c’ even with respect to an observer in a spaceship moving towards the Moon at 100,000m/sec. Also the  light photons will apparently be seen to be travelling at the same speed ‘c’ by someone travelling at 100,000m/sec in the opposite direction i.e. from the Moon towards the Earth.

But why did Einstein come out with a such weird proposition? What made the scientific minds fall prey to his wild theory? Read  the story in brief.

Time dilation/ Space contraction

To support the above ‘weird behavior’ of light, another weird thing was theorized (one had to, obviously!) i.e time dilatation. To keep the speed of light constant, Einstein made the time as relative.

Apparently different observers/clocks measure different times for the same ‘duration’ in the space, depending on their relative motion. Clocks apparently run slower or in other words time dilates as one moves faster, and hence the speed of light remains constant.

Also time apparently runs slower or time dilates near massive objects.

Another absurdity which came out of the general relativity is that there is no such thing as gravitational force or attraction. Heavy objects like stars apparently ‘curve’ or warp the space-time around them and this warping of space-time is responsible for the perceived gravitational effects.

Apparently planets do not go around the sun or the apples do not fall to the ground, instead all these travel in straight lines in the curved space-time. This curved space time gives us the illusion of planets going around the sun and apples falling to the earth.

(I doubt if we ‘really’ go to the office or to the market, it is probably the space-time that is curved around us which gives us the illusion that we move or do anything!)

Go to Next Page

Go to Previous Page

Go to Main Index


  • Alex  On September 21, 2013 at 10:27 am

    That dilates is not even debatable anymore. It’s a proven fact. Sorry mate.


    • drgsrinivas  On September 22, 2013 at 7:34 am

      I agree with you, it’s proven fact, but only to the relativity maniacs and their blind religious followers. The debate here is open only for sane people and independent logical thinkers. Obviously nothing can ever be debated with insane and blind flock.
      I do appreciate that relativists have ‘proven’ time dilation beyond doubt. But proof has a different meaning for the sane. See whether you could grasp that difference –


  • Brian Coyle  On October 19, 2013 at 8:38 am

    You need to think more before knee-jerking. Einstein’s goal was to show that anywhere in the universe time will be locally experienced the same way. This wouldn’t be possible in a universe where you could catch up to light. In that case energy particles outside you would slow down, but your own state would stay the same. Clocks would slow, and your experience of time wouldn’t stay the same. But energy particles inside and out actually remain the same, which should be logical to a logical person. Thus we can’t catch up to light.


    • drgsrinivas  On October 19, 2013 at 4:48 pm

      Relativity wouldn’t survive without such vague explanations and slippery arguements. Keep it up! This is exactly how one would describe the wonderful costume of the nude Emperor.


  • Marius de Jess  On December 2, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    I like this! Your commenters have not responded to your rebuttal, that means they are left wordless or more correctly ‘thoughtless’.

    Please host a forum.


    • drgsrinivas  On December 4, 2013 at 5:14 am

      I must thank you for your encouraging comments.
      I will certainly consider hosting a forum, but in the mean time have some fun talking to the rabid scientific mob at


    • Jerry  On January 2, 2014 at 7:51 pm

      What “rebuttal?” The author has offered nothing but ad hominem justification. Consider for a moment one of the major results of SR, the equivalence of mass and energy. We observe this equivalence every day in nuclear power (or the sun’s radiance, etc.). If SR were not true, then such equivalence would not exist. Perhaps the author would like to offer an alternative explanation?


      • drgsrinivas  On January 6, 2014 at 6:57 pm

        This is one of the common arguments raised by the scientific folk in support of relativity.
        Mass-energy equivalence is just one of the many delusions of the relativity maniacs (just like time dilation and curved space). I have exposed how the relativists routinely misinterpret experimental data to support their delusional beliefs. http://debunkingrelativity.com/2013/03/24/relativity-mania/ (I wish you had gone through these pages and commented upon the same)

        We can all agree that nuclear reactors generate power. But if you interpret that as proof of mass-energy equivalence and special relativity, then you may also interpret the flying birds and crawling tortoises as proof of the same. That is to say, if you misinterpret things, anything can be claimed as proof of your weird theory.

        The famous equation of E=mc2 and the principle of mass-energy equivalence can’t be correct because

        1) They are born out of a weird theory which is built upon a weird assumption

        2) Mass is a scalar quantity while energy is a vector quantity (of course most physicists aren’t intelligent enough to grasp this point). When a force acts upon a body, the body moves in the direction of the force. That is to say that work (and energy) has the same direction as that of the force.

        3) From what the mass-energy equivalence principle preaches, I would imagine that when the mass of a substance disappears, it releases an equivalent amount of energy as per the weird formula of E=mc2. But energy in what form? As far as we know the most fundamental form of energy is electromagnetic radiation, in other words light photons. So let us presume that 1gm mass of a substance ‘vanishes’ to release ‘X’ joules of energy in the form of photons. But if we manage to add the mass of all the individual photons that are released, that would probably add up to the original mass of the substance which released them. Of course relativists have another superstitious belief to their rescue- they believe that photons are massless. But how can a particle have no mass but still possess momentum. Obviously only relativity maniacs can accept such weird notions. There are some sane physicists who believe that photons do possess some mass albeit very small. So it is sensible to believe that 1gm mass of the above substance just got transformed into 1gm mass of photons. So the mass as such is still there and hasn’t disappeared from the world. But from where does the energy come? We can have a separate discussion on this issue.

        4) Energy of a body is relative while its mass is not. The mass of an object is measured by its inertia which has nothing to do with the motion of the observer – this is what people with commonsense would think. But again relativists have a delusional belief that an object’s mass increases with its velocity relative to the observer. They believe that a fast moving object will have more mass (relativistic mass) than when the same is at rest (rest mass). If the mass of a body were to vary with its velocity, it would imply that its value would vary in different directions because velocity is a vector quantity whose value varies depending upon in which direction we measure it. It would imply that mass is a vector quantity which is obviously ridiculous. And if mass were to be a vector quantity, then what is the direction of the rest mass of an object? Like this we can go on talking about the weird religion of relativity forever. And the more we dig into the delusional theory of relativity, the more stupid it becomes. And that is the reason why one can never win arguing against relativists – as the argument proceeds, they turn more and more stupid.

        In my view, mass and energy are opposite entities and are not interconvertable. While mass gives inertia to a body and opposes motion, it is energy which makes the body overcome that inertia and sets that body into motion. Energy always manifests itself in the form a moving body. And without mass and without motion there can be no energy. Let me remind you here that potential energy is not a manifest energy. It just indicates the potential of a body to acquire the said quantity of energy when it is set free or not restrained.

        Finally let me suggest you that you don’t blindly believe in everything that is portrayed as science or is preached by the great scientists, otherwise you would become a religious follower and not a real scientific person.


      • Jerry  On January 6, 2014 at 10:20 pm

        I’ve seen your other page, but it says essentially this: special relativity
        seems absurd to me so I’ll go ahead and choose the other option. Unfortunately, you offer no alternative.

        Flying birds cannot help explain nuclear energy, whereas the results of
        special relativity can do so. Nuclear energy itself does not prove SR, but
        SR (and the resulting E=mc2) is *consistent* with it. Offer an alternative
        if you don’t agree.

        1) “Weird” is not a scientific word (though “strange” is, but then only as a quark flavor)

        2) Energy is *not* a vector. Energy (or work) results from the sum (integral) of forces acting on a body over a distance. E.g., I push a car in +x with F = 1 N while my friend pushes it the other way with F = 2 N and we go -1 m, the work done is (1 N ).(1 m ) + (2 N ).(1 m ) = 1 N m = 1 J, where, e.g., means in the +x direction. To repeat, energy is *not a vector*.

        3) The energy resulting from mass changes can be in a variety of forms. For nuclear fission, the energy is almost entirely given to fission fragments as *kinetic* energy. Hence, photons and their (zero) is irrelevant here. In an unrelated application, we *do* observe that mass is converted purely to E&M energy: electron-positron annihilation, in which two photons, each of 0.511 MeV (equal, by the way, to the rest mass of e * c2), are emitted and can be used for medical imaging. By the way, namecalling (“maniacs”, etc.) is not the way to have a good debate.

        4) Again, you offer absolutely no argument outside of throwing around words like “stupid”, “weird”, “delusional.”

        In your view, mass and energy aren’t equivalent. Fine. But show why!

        Believe me, I do not blindly believe in things I do not understand. The results of SR *make sense* to me. Although they might not make sense to you, I’ll point out you have much work to do before you can claim to be
        “debunking” the theory.


      • drgsrinivas  On January 7, 2014 at 5:44 pm

        “I’ve seen your other page, but it says essentially this: special relativity
        seems absurd to me so I’ll go ahead and choose the other option. Unfortunately, you offer no alternative”

        There I have presented the logical way of interpreting the experimental data. The fact that you haven’t got that just shows your delusional adherence to relativity. In fact that page serves as a screening tool to assess the logical abilities of a person. Unfortunately you have utterly failed in the screening test.
        SR is absurd, but it is the way relativists prove SR that is even more absurd. They always resort to some circular logic to prove their weird theory and the pity thing is that they don’t even realise that. SR proposes that time dilation is real. Time dilation then proves SR. We can find no better example to illustrate circular logic.

        “Flying birds cannot help explain nuclear energy, whereas the results of
        special relativity can do so”

        You didn’t get it right, I meant SR can explain everything including flying birds, moving tortoises and not just nuclear power because there are no logical restraints. In other words, you can claim even a flying bird as consistent with SR and hence argue that SR is proven beyond doubt.

        “Weird” is not a scientific word (though “strange” is, but then only as a quark flavor)

        The word ‘weird’ is found numerous times in your own ‘religious’ science books, and much more frequently than ‘strange’. And let me tell you that your religious preachers, despite posing highly scientific, don’t even differentiate between the words speed and velocity and keep uttering that speed of light is constant.

        “Energy is *not* a vector. Energy (or work) results from the sum (integral) of forces acting on a body over a distance. E.g., I push a car in +x with F = 1 N while my friend pushes it the other way with F = 2 N and we go -1 m, the work done is (1 N ).(1 m ) + (2 N ).(1 m ) = 1 N m = 1 J, where, e.g., means in the +x direction. To repeat, energy is *not a vector*

        Your clumsy maths hardly make any sense. When multiple forces act upon a body; the direction of work is decided by the sum of all the force vectors. One can’t claim one’s superstition as a fact by repeating the same. That only shows how strongly one is affected by the superstition.

        “photons and their (zero) is irrelevant”

        I know why, that exposes the stupidity of your religion. And let me tell you that gamma radiation occurs as part of the radioactive decay. A relativist can’t escape from applying mass-energy equivalence to this scenario by saying unrelated application etc

        namecalling (maniacs”, etc)

        A maniac is a person who holds abnormal beliefs and draws abnormal conclusions out of normal phenomena. I am highly scientific in using that name.

        “In your view, mass and energy aren’t equivalent. Fine. But show why!”

        I have already explained why. But I think I have misjudged your level of understanding. You may want to have another look at what I have said or may wait for a version for people with special needs.


  • robinpike  On January 7, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    The weakness with SR is that SR is just a calculation – it is not an explanation, for SR does not explain what mass is, nor what light is. So statements such as E=mc2 don’t reveal much.


    • drgsrinivas  On January 7, 2014 at 5:59 pm

      That really makes sense


    • Jerry  On January 7, 2014 at 7:11 pm

      Except that SR is *not* just a calculation. SR is based on two postulates. The first is nothing more than newtonian relativity, i.e., we can’t determine absolute motion of inertial reference frames. The second is that the speed of light is constant. Making those assumptions leads to a set of equations (E=mc2 included) that is *consistent* with observations. I never said such observations prove SR is correct, but there exists no other theory (certainly none given by the blogger) that offers a consistent explanation.

      The blogger insists his other page demonstrates that SR is false by considering what must be an analogy to the muon problem (i.e., those from space seem to be “different” from those at rest on earth). Here’s his logic:

      Not P and Q
      P or Q
      Therefore, not P

      Substitute Q = “heavenly muons are different from earthly muons” and P = “SR is correct” and you have his argument. Because he has asserted to “have presented the logical way of interpreting the experimental data”, the blogger might consider enrolling in a course on elementary logic (in addition to a course on vector mathematics).


      • robinpike  On January 8, 2014 at 1:42 pm

        “SR is based on two postulates. The first is nothing more than newtonian relativity, i.e.,
        (1) We can’t determine absolute motion of inertial reference frames.
        (2) The second is that the speed of light is constant.”
        My issue with (1) is that SR takes our inability to determine a reference for absolute motion as proof that motion has no absolute reference. That does not necessarily follow.
        My issue with (2) is that SR takes our inability to measure any change in our relative speed to that of light, as proof that when we change our motion, that our motion relative to that of light has not changed. Again, that does not necessarily follow.


      • drgsrinivas  On January 8, 2014 at 3:50 pm

        Making those assumptions leads to a set of equations (E=mc2 included) that is *consistent* with observations. I never said such observations prove SR is correct, but there exists no other theory (certainly none given by the blogger) that offers a consistent explanation.

        That is right, mere consistency of results with a mathematical model is not same as proof of that model. Good that you realise that.
        About the alternative explanations, if you abandon the assumption that speed of light is constant (which you yourself have rightly confessed that it is an assumption), you will immediately realise the existence of alternative explanations for the observations on cosmic ray muons. The cosmic ray muons could probably be living longer than their laboratory counterparts or they could be travelling faster than what we thought of them. In case you are under any misconception, an explanation need not be a complex theory that distorts our reality, it could also be very simple. And things at the most basic level don’t require any explanation at all. For example
        2 is greater than 1
        Only relativists demand for explanations to such fundamental statements (of course they do that only when their superstition is under threat)

        There is no set logic for relativity religion, so one can never get their logic. Otherwise I would have loved to learn logic from them. The only thing that remains unchanging for them is speed of light. Everything else changes, warps, dilates, contracts etc as and when needed to keep that divine constant for them.


      • Jerry  On January 8, 2014 at 4:16 pm

        robinpike: You are right. Neither *postulate* proves anything. They are the *assumptions* of SR. However, there is little (if anything) in science that can be “proved” in the sense of mathematics. However, if we assume, for example, that light does not have a constant speed, then E doesn’t equal mc2, which is inconsistent with the observed energy release from nuclear reactions. My example above was the fission reaction. You start with uranium and a neutron and get two massive fission fragments (e.g., krypton + barium) + neutrons + neutrinos. The mass of the products is less than the inputs, and the products have kinetic energy equal to the change in mass times c2. I have yet to see an explanation for this based on newtonian physics alone, but do share if you have.

        drgsrinivas: Sure, they could be different muons from space. However, how do you explain the same apparent lifetime discrepancy when the muons are produced and accelerated to relativistic speeds in particle accelerators on earth? (See, e.g., “Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit”, Nature 268 (1978)).


      • drgsrinivas  On January 8, 2014 at 5:24 pm

        Before I do that you may explain
        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?
        How do we know for sure that the laboratory muons (if travelling at 0.99c, same speed as that of the cosmic ray muons) are not already experiencing time dilation and space contraction? So how can we swear upon our measurements of distance and time in the laboratory as absolute and ‘fix’ the speed and life span of muons? Why not we take the observations made on the cosmic ray muons to calculate their speed and life span?

        And if lab muons and cosmic muons were to travel at the same speed, we would have noted the lab muons also travel the same distance of 1600meters in 2 microsec, just like their cosmic ray counterparts, in which case we would have calculated their speed as exceeding that of light.



      • robinpike  On January 8, 2014 at 5:14 pm

        “However, if we assume, for example, that light does not have a constant speed, then E doesn’t equal mc2, which is inconsistent with the observed energy release from nuclear reactions.”

        My issue with SR is on the point of our motion with regards to light’s constant speed – and how this concern is phrased is important, as my point can be mis-interpreted.

        Since, when we measure the speed of light, we always get the same value, this means that the speed of light must be a constant value (otherwise there would have to be an amazing explanation).

        The trouble that I have with SR, is to then go on to take it that our motion relative to that of light is therefore always c as well [A].

        That is just physically impossible to engineer – at least that is my understanding.

        I don’t necessarily disagree with any of SR’s calculations, but to take SR as a physical explanation of what is going on is just nonsense – because of point [A] above.


      • drgsrinivas  On January 8, 2014 at 5:48 pm

        The trouble that I have with SR, is to then go on to take it that our motion relative to that of light is therefore always c as well [A].

        very good point. (relativists may now demand us to read their theory turning upside down though!)


      • Jerry  On January 9, 2014 at 12:36 pm

        drgsrinivas: Muons have been observed at low and high energies in the laboratory. The low energy (low speed) liftime is the often-cited 2.2 microsecond result (see, e.g., Improved Measurement of the Positive-Muon Lifetime and Determination of the Fermi Constant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 2007). My previous post gave a measurement for a laboratory result at relativistic speeds, and the difference is consistent with (but, as we all agree, does not prove) SR.

        robinpike: SR is certainly not intuitive, but being intuitive is not a prerequisite for being correct. One way you might think of SR is to view space and time as a literal four-dimensional vector, w = (x,y,z,ct), with a proper time T defined via the differential dT2 = dt2 – (dx2+dy2+dz2)/c2. Then the “speed” in space-time is the magnitude of dw/dT, which turns out to be identically c. That implies that everything has one speed in space-time that can be shared between motion in space and motion in time. For us, moving slowly, time moves swiftly ahead. For things moving rapidly relative to us, more of the space-time speed is shifted to motion, and hence we observe their time to elapse more slowly.


      • robinpike  On January 9, 2014 at 2:35 pm

        Here is a real life example of why I have an issue with special relativity…

        In a circular particle accelerator, where say the particles being accelerated are electrons, electric fields are used to speed up the electrons.

        And to bend the path of the electrons around the circular accelerator, magnetic fields are used.

        As the electrons speed up, what is found is that the bending of the electron paths by the magnets, causes the electrons to emit photons (cyclotron radiation).

        The explanation for this radiation, is that when a force is applied to the electrons that cause them to change direction, they emit a particle of light.

        And this all matches up with what we see (i.e. from our point of view)…

        (1) The electric fields accelerate the electrons in the same direction that they are already moving, so this acceleration does not cause the electrons to emit light.

        (2) Whereas the magnetic fields bend the electrons into a circular path, and this causes them to emit light.

        The problem comes when you take special relativity at face value and look at it from the electrons point of view…

        The electron sees itself as being ‘stationary’ and being hit by multiple virtual photons from the electric fields (1) and magnetic fields (2) – all arriving at the speed of light, although from different directions.

        And because from its point of view, it is ‘stationary’, the electron has no way to know whether a virtual photon is accelerating it in the direction that it is already ‘moving’, or accelerating it in a different direction to that it is ‘moving’?


      • robinpike  On January 10, 2014 at 7:32 pm

        Jerry, you wrote: “One way you might think of SR is to view space and time as a literal four-dimensional vector, w = (x,y,z,ct), with a proper time T defined via the differential dT2 = dt2 – (dx2+dy2+dz2)/c2. Then the “speed” in space-time is the magnitude of dw/dT, which turns out to be identically c. That implies that everything has one speed in space-time that can be shared between motion in space and motion in time. For us, moving slowly, time moves swiftly ahead. For things moving rapidly relative to us, more of the space-time speed is shifted to motion, and hence we observe their time to elapse more slowly.”

        But there is no need to make it as complex as that…

        You get the same result if a simple set of particles are used in a normal 3 dimensional universe, all that is required is for the particles to move at a constant speed.

        With such a system, the apparent mixing of ‘space-time’ is created when the particles change to move in a circle of movement. Now, when such a circle of movement moves forward through space, its ability to move in any other direction becomes slowed down – creating the illusion that time is slowing down for that particle.

        Such a system does not need to ‘mix space and time’.


      • Jerry  On January 11, 2014 at 6:07 am

        robinpike: I’m a bit confused what you mean regarding electrons in particle accelerators. Irrespective of special relativity, the forces at a stationary point can be determined, and, hence, the direction of acceleration known. This does not depend on the electron “knowing” it or not. Of course, at relativistic speeds, the forces become relativistic quantities, but that doesn’t change force balance (or imbalance).

        If you consider only 3-space, time is completely decoupled from x, y, and z, and, hence, there can be no time-slowing, apparent or otherwise. If light speed is taken to be constant, then time dilation is a consequence of the theory and, more importantly, is not an illusion. Consider the world’s simplest clock: light bouncing between two mirrors, with each bounce and return being a “toc.” One such clock is stationary on the table. Another moves at a constant velocity across the table. From our reference frame, we see light moving a farther distance in the moving clock (because the light crosses the distance between the clocks in addition to the incremental distance of the clock’s travel, i.e., a zig-zag) than in our stationary clock. However, if the speed of light is constant, then, in a given instant of our time, we see fewer bounces in the moving clock. In other words, time elapses more slowly in the moving frame, and that can only be represented mathematically in terms of the 4-vector.


      • drgsrinivas  On January 13, 2014 at 1:15 am

        sorry jerry, your light clock actually proves that relativity is a mania.



      • robinpike  On January 13, 2014 at 5:57 pm

        Jerry you wrote: “I’m a bit confused what you mean regarding electrons in particle accelerators. Irrespective of special relativity, the forces at a stationary point can be determined, and, hence, the direction of acceleration known. This does not depend on the electron “knowing” it or not. Of course, at relativistic speeds, the forces become relativistic quantities, but that doesn’t change force balance (or imbalance).”

        The question I have is… When does the electron emit a photon due to experiencing an accelerating force as it goes around the particle accelerator ring?

        (1) Is it when the electron experiences acceleration by the electric fields used to make the electron go ‘faster’ around the accelerator ring?

        (2) Or is it when the electron experiences acceleration by the magnetic fields used to bend the path of the electron around the accelerator ring?

        (3) Or as SR suggests, both instances of those above?


      • Jerry  On January 13, 2014 at 9:23 pm

        drgsrinivas: No, it doesn’t. Neither does it prove SR. The photon clock is simply a way to illustrate time dilation *if* one assumes a constant speed of light. Note, you spend a lot of time discussing velocity and vectors, but SR is based on a constant light *speed.*

        robinpike: As written, I would say neither. Photons are emitted as work is performed, so not only must the particles be accelerated, that corresponding force must be done over some distance. Hence, it doesn’t make much sense to talk about energy emission in a single instant. In any case, I still don’t understand why the two fields should be viewed independently—is there some specific criticism you’re implying? Perhaps pose it mathematically so I can understand better what you’re asking.


      • drgsrinivas  On January 15, 2014 at 10:30 am

        Your argument clearly supports the ‘theory of stupidity of relativity’ that I have proposed to explain how stupid are relativists.

        You preach that Light travels at ‘c’ in the direction of space in your delusional 4D space-time matrix! But we shouldn’t specify a direction to ‘c’ in the real 3D space! Well done, congratulations. And double congratulations if you could also preach me about the momentum of a photon (mc) in the same stupid way. (By the way your stupid religion teaches that a photon has momentum despite zero mass).

        Whenever we have to quantify the rate of motion of a body or particle, it makes sense to specify the direction. The reason is that it varies in different directions. But of course this will destroy your stupid theory. So as you have been doing, simply toggle between speed and velocity as that helps hiding your ignorance and saves your stupid religion.

        Why make some stupid assumption in the first place and then swear upon that and draw even more stupid conclusions? For a moment, I will believe that your stupid assumption of constant SOL is correct. Now explain me your delusion of time dilation in the scenario of vertically moving clock? Why isn’t that your stupid formula of time dilation utterly fails here? Why didn’t it catch your attention? Isn’t it because that goes against your superstition of time dilation?

        Your stupid theory predicts that time dilates or runs slower in stronger gravitational fields. It implies that all clocks (and of course all processes) must run slower in stronger gravitational fields. But why is that pendulum clocks tick faster with increasing gravity? Why is that only atomic clocks obey your stupid formula? Don’t be ashamed if you don’t know how the period of a pendulum gets affected by gravity. Simply deny or demand for published literature just to pose highly scientific.

        Coming to your muon’s story, you haven’t answered why the laboratory muons, if travelling at the same velocity as the cosmic ray muons, didn’t experience the same stupid time dilation and manage to travel 1600 meters in their life time as did the cosmcic ray muons? To calculate the speed of a particle, we have to take the measurements of distance and time in our reference frame. Or at least there must be uniform rule. Why do you take measurements from our reference frame while calculating the speed and half life for lab muons and jump to muons’ reference frame to calculate the same for the cosmic ray muons?
        (Relativists are not even intelligent enough to stick to reference frames. They toggle between reference frames subconsciously to prove their delusions. Novice if not so diligent may easily get carried away by what the ‘great’ physicists teach and begin to chant the relativity mantra)

        Muons travelling in circular orbit are actually in a state of uniform acceleration. You religion preaches that SR applies to objects that are in uniform motion and GR applies to those in accelerated motion. But your stupid physicists claim that the muons in circular accelerator experience time dilation as exactly predicted by SR. That proves that relativists are not only stupid but they are also shameless.

        If you want to prove yourself as not part of the stupid folk (or to disprove my ‘theory of stupidity of relativity’!), you will have to answer to each and every point raised above. The other option would be not responding at all as that at least allows you to claim that you haven’t seen this reply.
        Good luck!


      • robinpike  On January 14, 2014 at 6:37 pm

        Jerry, the reason why I ask these questions, is because I wonder if the emission of the cyclotron radiation shows a logical contradiction with respect to SR?

        To describe these concerns as simply as possible, let’s just consider a linear particle accelerator.

        My understanding of a linear accelerator is that the particles do not suffer from loss of energy due to the emission of ‘cyclotron’ radiation.

        If that is so, then my question is…

        (1) Since the electron feels an accelerating force as it goes down the linear accelerator, then why does this acceleration not produce the emission of photons?

        If I have got this wrong, and photons are emitted by the accelerating particles, even in the linear particle accelerators, then my question is…

        (2) When a virtual photon interacts with the particle and accelerates the particle, does this always cause a photon to be emitted?


      • drgsrinivas  On January 15, 2014 at 10:32 am

        robinpike, there is no need to delve so deep to expose the stupidity of relativity. That only helps the relativists to hide their stupidity behind vague statements. The other problem is that novice readers may think that relativity is really difficult stuff and they may blindly believe in what the ‘great’ physicists preach, start chanting their stupid science and join the stupid folk without even realising that.

        The truth is that the religion of relativity is straight forwardly stupid. Maths makeup only 10% of it. The rest of it is mere psychosis. For example go through the twin flight experiment.

        Apparently it was noted that the atomic clock in the east bound flight experienced time dilation as exactly predicted by the stupid SR. But from the reference frame of a passenger in that flight, it was the west bound flight which was moving very fast, so time dilation must actually occur to the clock in west bound flght. But this was not what the clock readings suggest. What it implies? The readings of the clocks (believing that the data was not cooked up by the ‘psychicists’ having been mesmerised by the stupid religion!) appear to obey the formula of SR only when looked from the reference frame of the earthbound observer.


  • robinpike  On January 7, 2014 at 1:52 pm

    It is much the same with general relativity’s explanation of gravity being curved spacetime – GR is nothing more than a calculation.
    Curved spacetime cannot be the explanation for gravity, for if it were, then it would leave the question: what is causing the curvature into the ‘4th dimension’?
    GR’s answer is that the curvature is caused by mass, but this has gained nothing, for then GR is explaining gravity with another, new ‘gravity force’ – completely circular and pointless!


  • K Sean Proudler  On January 21, 2014 at 3:11 am

    Relativity does not exist without a cause, thus relativity resides within an absolute, the absolute foundation of Space and Time.

    Absolute Space And Time, in which the relativistic events occur, can not be detected. But does not mean that the container of which relativity resides within does not exist.

    However, if you take into account the existence of absolute Space and Time, along with the motion that goes on within it, you soon end up discovering Length Contraction, Time Dilation, Transformation equations, Velocity Addition equations, and so forth.

    Thus you discover,…..RELATIVITY !


    • drgsrinivas  On January 21, 2014 at 10:08 am

      Beautiful description of the Nude Emperor’s costume. Without doubt you can claim yourself as a wise man!


  • Galacar  On April 14, 2014 at 2:23 am

    This is what Tesla has said about ‘curvature of space”:

    “I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

    Nikola Tesla”

    Well, Sounds much more common sense to me!

    Warm greetings
    Galacar (Holland)


  • Tim Ruiz  On July 20, 2014 at 6:42 am

    robinpike, interesting point regarding gravity and curvature. Perhaps matter and mass are the products of what is currently called gravity, and not the cause of it.


  • KAmara  On September 20, 2014 at 4:24 am

    The problem with your page, and I would be surprised if you let this comment out, that you clearly don’t know physics. If someone without any knowledge reads this might have the impression that you’ve looked into the subject, but it looks like you took your information from a bad Discovery “documentary”. Ihope people with less insight to the topic are realizing this. Unfortunatelly you put people off discovering reality for themselves by misleading them with false information. P.S: You clerly have an issue with conspiration theories.


    • drgsrinivas  On September 20, 2014 at 9:01 pm

      So you believe that some of your ‘science pastors’ have made bad documentaries and mislead general public by presenting them false science. I have a different explanation for the ‘bad’ documentaries. Like the case with any religion, there exist many different sects (with slightly different beliefs) in your science religion as well. While the fundamental beliefs and rituals will remain the same across all the sects of your religion, there will probably exist some minor differences between the sects and each sect may have a different style of preaching and propagating your religious ideology. (Though all ‘wise’ men agree upon the marvellous nature of their Emperor’s costume, it would be unfair to expect every wise man to give the same description of the marvellous costume because there isn’t really a costume. And same is the case with your pastors! Different pastors of relativity gave different descriptions of their religion and lead to different sects in relativity!)

      Because of the slightly different ideologies and practices between different sects, your sect may feel a documentary produced by other sects as somewhat bad or awkward. But however bad you feel about some documentary on your religion, you will surely find the fundamental beliefs of your religion as untampered. For example, all the documentaries would chant the ‘constant speed of light’ mantra, and they would show Einstein as Einstein, Newton as Newton, time dilation as time dilation and space contraction as space contraction etc.

      In this blog I am only talking about the fundamental beliefs and not at all touching upon the minor differences amongst the subgroups of your religion. If you have noted any of your science pastors distort and encroach upon the fundamentals of your religion, maybe you should convey the same to the discovery channel. The channel might consider honouring you as a saviour of your religion and might employ you as well!

      BTW, what made you think that I won’t post your reply? In fact please send in your photo and resume with full address and I promise I will attach them to your reply- as a symbolic representation of religious idiocy i.e. how even normal people can turn highly stupid because of their hardcore religious attachment to a stupid religion.

      PS: I don’t think you have anything to do with conspiracy theories. Your religious crowd simply are not capable of doing that. It is just your ignorance which made you to cling to your weird theories and to oppose even the most straightforward logic.


    • Galacar  On September 23, 2014 at 9:06 pm

      You wrote:

      “P.S: You clerly have an issue with conspiration theories.”

      What do you mean here? Did you know this whole world is run by conspiracy theories. You can laugh all you will but it is true.
      There is one huge global conspiracy that is going on and it is into nearly everything, but especially science. ‘science’ isn’t ment to discover the truth,
      science is ment to keep us from the truth!
      Hence, physics and all that comes with it, like relativity’ is bollocks!


      • drgsrinivas  On September 24, 2014 at 6:25 pm

        I suppose KAmara and Hamara are probably dead by now!

        BTW, I like your statement “science is meant to keep us from the truth!”. Welcome back Galacar!


  • Galacar  On September 24, 2014 at 6:52 pm

    Hi drgsriniva

    Thank you” drgsriniva! Well I am rather curious what those two have to say now.
    And about the comment, I have studied this subject for a few years and actually
    ‘science; was ‘invented’ (by the Royal Society) when the reilgions didn’t work as good as they used to do for controlling . So ‘science’ is in that sense a religion.It has indeed to do with control of people, and how do you control people? By keeping them away from any truth. Conrtol is imossible when there is real truth, hence , because sciense is about conrtol, there can be no truth. I stop here now, it is a subject I can talk about for hours!. But in a nutshell it has to do with ‘progressing’ toward a ‘scientific dicatorship”. So “science is meant to keep us from the truth!” is indeed true,.


    • drgsrinivas  On September 24, 2014 at 10:48 pm

      Interesting perspective on how science got evolved.
      Whatever may have been the intentions of the Royal Society, I can say that the present day scientists are ‘innocent’ – they are ‘doing’ science because they genuinely believe in it. Because they are so religiously attached to science, they don’t realise the absurdities in it. These scientific religious minds are neither intelligent enough nor ‘crooked minded’ to deliberately use ‘bad science’ to take ‘control’ over the society.


  • Galacar  On September 24, 2014 at 11:40 pm

    Everyone who goes through the ‘educational system’ will be thoroughly indoctrinated and not able to think freely anymore.
    “education’ is here to dumb people down.All this by design and provable so.
    Now, if education makes people dumb, then the longer one has been educated, the dumber they are! And who has the most ‘education’…yep…scientists!
    They really can’t think, but they think they do because of the enormous propaganda that ‘education makes them ‘smart’ but it is all only about remebering and nothing more.This is a huge subject all by it self and I understand it sounds very controversial. But my ‘measuerent’ is truth, not popularity and what have you.So much more to tell, buit I leave it at this for now,
    I have to be carefull, I could go onn on and on and on. But the bottomline is ‘scientists’ can’t think good and logically AND they have lost their last spark of creativity.
    It is a sad thing.


    • drgsrinivas  On September 28, 2014 at 1:04 pm

      That explains why scientists are the most stupid crowd on Earth! Indoctrinated by the long ‘education’ process, they are simply incapable of thinking out of the box.


  • Galacar  On September 28, 2014 at 2:08 am

    Here is what prof Dingle wrote (And before he was an expert in relativity and teached it too University students)

    “University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why special relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving clock. But the relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows that if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd.

    Dingle’s Question was this: Which clock runs slow? Physicists could not agree on an answer. As the debate raged on, a Canadian physicist wrote to Nature in July 1973: “Maybe the time has come for all of those who want to answer to get together and to come up with one official answer. Otherwise the plain man, when he hears of this matter, may exercise his right to remark that when the experts disagree they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong.”

    I certainly recommand his book :”Science at the Crossroads (1972) “because it shows so clearly how he is being stonewalled by the academic religion.


  • Galacar  On September 28, 2014 at 1:55 pm

    To drgsrinivas

    You wrote:

    “That explains why scientists are the most stupid crowd on Earth! Indoctrinated by the long ‘education’ process, they are simply incapable of thinking out of the box.”

    Exactly! Exactly!

    I have in the meantime heard from two ‘alternative’ researchers, that they wouldn’t have found, what they found, when they would have an academic
    The brother of Victor Schaubaerger went to Universty and Schauburger saw before his eyes how his brother went ‘crazy’ in his thinking.
    There is also a (ufo) researcher who had an ‘academic background”. He was so honest to say that he had to unlearn a lot what he had leraned (read: indoctrinated with).
    So, to anyone here, if you are an academic you have to start an ‘unlearning process’
    Please do it, because it is soooo liberating!
    Free your mind.


  • boco06  On December 4, 2014 at 6:29 am

    Hi all,
    I thought I was fairly alone on this SR-GR subject until I just entered “relativity crap’ in Google and arrived here. My attitudes to the aformentiioned SR-GR are thus clear and at least partly in line with drgsrinivas, a personal greeting to you, Sir.
    However, solid rebuttal of the SCIFI concerning relativity is not at all easy, even when we can ignore the cranks, herd-instincters, political incompetants and many other exponants of this ‘divinity’. I would like to start all over, not scoffing at Einstein and Co., but to try to rethink the whole aspect, using both science and commen sense. Maybe here is a starting point.

    On those who disciple SR-GR, an old nothern joke seems to fit:

    A man appeared normal, except that he would occaisionally suddenly scream ‘Hey-Hey!’ His wife finally demanded an expanation. He answerd, ‘It keeps the wild elephants at bay.’. ‘ Rubbish! There are no wild elephants here and none for thousands of miles around!’ The man beamed. ‘You see, it works…’


    • drgsrinivas  On December 6, 2014 at 9:35 pm

      Thank you and welcome you sir!
      Glad to see more people joining in the ‘crusade’ against the stupid religion which calls itself as modern physics!


  • Boco06  On December 7, 2014 at 1:35 am

    Hi drgsrinivas,
    thanks for the welcome. I’m reading the posts on this forum as I can, to get the feel of what the essentials are, please don’t expect any world-breaking contributions from me, at least not yet!


  • boco06  On December 7, 2014 at 11:50 am

    Hi Drgsirinivas,
    I’m not against science or physics either, but with you all who are against the nonsense which has developed, partly through ignorant, hype-seeking mass media and atrocious schooling, partly while most of the world appears to require to be fooled.
    I’m reading through this forum as I can, and hope to post content of my humble opinion in due course.
    Have a nice day.


    • drgsrinivas  On December 7, 2014 at 1:14 pm

      Well, nobody here is against correct science and correct physics. we are only arguing against the stupid theories and superstitions which are masquerading as cutting edge science.


  • Boco06  On December 7, 2014 at 11:43 pm

    No, I know that. I should have written ” I’m not against Science or Physics, just like you are not against it..’
    Having lectured in natural sciences over the last 30 years, I’ve come into contact with many situations where my own views have hit rock. Curiously enough, more students than I expected have either accepted such ‘wayward’ teachings, or at least tried to understand.. Maybe hope for the world?


  • nakayama  On February 13, 2015 at 8:13 am

    Light speed is not Constant (to observer) !!

    All that we receive with our eyes are the facts of the past (unchangeable). Wavelength of incident light is coming from the past. On incident light, a formula c = λ f stands up. And λ is unchangeable (by our motion). Terms f and c change.

    Sorry, I can’t receive E-mail. I don’t have PC.



  • Napoleon Of The Now  On June 23, 2015 at 6:00 am

    Actually Einstein’s personal notes are full of mathematical errors. This is something I’ve heard from an NPR report.
    One astrophysicist noted 20% of his papers have errors, thats 1 in 5!


  • Galacar  On June 24, 2015 at 10:59 am

    Napoleon Of The Now wrote:

    “Actually Einstein’s personal notes are full of mathematical errors. This is something I’ve heard from an NPR report.
    One astrophysicist noted 20% of his papers have errors, thats 1 in 5!”

    So much for this ‘mathematical genius’!

    Thanks, mate!


  • Louis D.  On September 29, 2015 at 3:38 am

    The writer is correct. To prove the dilation hypothesis wrong only requires the application of a simple mental geometry problem. One can conceive of a flat disc representing a phonograph disk or a planetary orbit in space. Either way, relativity according to Einstein states that the measuring rod necessary to measure a body at rest and one in motion becomes shorter for the body in motion. Let’s set the diameter of a disc as 2r and r = 1. Then the cIR um France of the disk is 3.14. Now let’s recreate the outside edge or circumfrance, perimeter, whatever to be made up of 3600 little lengths of r/1800. Now let’s spin the disk in one direction. According to Einstein, the length of each piece of the outer edge must contract. But the D does not change. Therefore it takes more little lengths of r=1/1800th to make a complete circumfrance, but adding those up would cause the measure on the outside to see a circumfrance bigger than 3.14159. That can’t be true. Therefore, ther is no change in the measuring rod length in real space, no rod dilation as a result of movement through radial momentum and Einstein was wrong.

    You don’t need the convoluted means fabricated in Special Relativity to achieve most of what we know that can be validated by experimentation. C while constant to the reference frame of the observer in which it was originated, and in all propegation, is still like any other accelerated partial or energy wave, moving in accordance with the reference frame. The red/blue shifts (Doppler Effect) tell us about the relative motion of the reference frame from whence the wave originated. But the actual relative speed to us will seem instantaneously as 300km/sec…though it originates at R’fv{+/- c}. There is no special reason why c should be so special that it cannot be measured as a relative speed fixed at 300km v {+/- R’fv} by associative property, and the addition or subtraction of R’fv is measured and converted from the measured Doppler shift.

    This also man’s that observations of relative distance in light years, will gradually increase the real age from the apparent age of the universe, because the farther back we llok towards the early universe, the greater the red shift. This means the observable universe is older than presently supposed using strictly Einstine’s equations, maybe twice as old.

    The failure of radial “measuring sticks” become apparent when the sticks that measure in motion 1/1800-y {where y represents to motion induced shortening per SR} are all turned 90°toward the center of the disk and each resumes it’s exact apparent length of 1/1800th of D. They are still spinning but when perpendicular to the axis of spin are normal length. But when turned and shortened by L=SRy, they no longer touch end to end and therefor the circumference of the Disc must become greater than pi (C>3.14159). If you measured a disc moving so rapidly the C~moved in orbit at c:v then it would actually have to cover more D at a rate faster than C~cv (faster than light). Yeats not suppose to be possible.

    SR is simple an exercise in illusion. The ovservable universe does not need SR to know relative transformations between reference frames. It only needs to know orbital mechanics as explained by Newton and modern constants such as c and pi. Space does not need to curve in the presence of mass. Mass is located in space, and it may well be a gravitational lyrics pressured condensate of radical energy within a specific kink in space, but it does not need to Warp space. It’s not necessary to present big chunks of addition canvas when the point goes on the white cloth. I love Einstein and he got a lot right. He made us think and react. But his notions of time dilation an fuzzy measuring rods is nonsense. It makes no sense to force the natural world into an infinite number of measuring reference frames just because of bodies in motion just to c can never be different. The speed at which most things move about in the univers compared to RME is pitifully slow. The Red and Blue shifts are sufficient to combine with the propegation of C to tell us real time speed.


  • Galacar  On September 29, 2015 at 11:25 am

    Louis D wrote:

    Nice piece, However, you wrote ” I love Einstein and he got a lot right. ”

    Ok, well, like what? I like to know.

    Furthermore, as I wrote somewhere before, there is a LOT wrong with measuring things, especially since scientist use mostly thier left brain!
    A lot of measuring things by their left-brain is assumed, and probably wrong,
    very very very wrong. Hence, NOTHING in science/physics works the way we think. I don’t have all the answers how it should be, But I do know for sure the
    way it is done now is wrong, very, very wrong.
    And besides from all that, the measering standards, like ‘meter’ and what have you, are adjusted in such a way, that the ‘scientist’ wil never discover some
    All this, as ,I said before is , by design.
    Nothing in this world, works the way you think it works, nothing!
    Yes, it is fascinating. At least I think it is.


  • Georgiev  On January 14, 2017 at 1:23 am

    Everything about “Debunking Special Relativity” can be found in amazon: “THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY = THE BIGGEST DELUSION IN PHYSICS


  • Raheman Velji  On February 17, 2017 at 3:35 am


    As you will find in my website, the speed of light can be “meausured” in two different ways; it iis always ameasured to be the constant c, but is aderived differently.


  • im6336  On September 17, 2017 at 3:05 pm

    you Are Just some Kid who Is Crying Over the Fact That Why i didn’t Come up with The Idea Of Relativity…..Theory OF relativity is the Foundation Of Modern Science This is How We human Race Have Progressed and will Progress .We Build layer BY layer Stone By Stone ,step by step right one on top of the other ,Right on the Foundation Laid By Our Ancestors . No matter If they Were Right or Wrong……


  • Galacar  On September 18, 2017 at 12:18 am


    Duh? Well, in a sense you are right. The Theory of Relativity (TOR) is SOLD to us as Progress of Modern Science. SOLD, you see, Most peple have swallowed it hook, line and…, Just tell me this. How come then that the TOR has stalled physics for years and years? Please show me the ‘progress”.. Here is a quote from the toweing genius Tesla explaining why physics is stalled and so backwards.”The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” Well, physics hasn’t done that yet! If Tesla idea’s were promoted people would laugh the idiotic einstein out of the room! Oh, and then there is this, when I read about “progress” then that reminds me of a good qoite from Gandhi: “What Do You Think of Western Civilization?” “I Think It Would Be a Good Idea””. Progress??? Well, mate or you are very young or very naive! Progress eh?! Ha!!!! That must explain the misery around me and always makes me so sad,


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.