Tag Archives: space contraction

Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity

Relativists argue that their theory of relativity is backed up with strong mathematics. Let’s have a glance at the weird maths that all the relativists are proud of, before we go on to ‘construct’ some equally ridiculous mathematics.

Relativistic Addition of velocities: Imagine two reference frames A and B. Also imagine that frame B (observer B) is moving away at velocity ‘v’ with respect to frame A (observer A). Now if an object in frame B moves with velocity u′ in the same direction, what would be the velocity (u) of the object with respect to an observer in frame A?

I know it sounds very complex because it is in the language of the relativists. And this is how they pose as highly intelligent and confuse and scare the readers. Let me put that in a much simpler way-

Imagine a train moving at velocity v with respect to an observer standing on the platform. Inside the train if a passenger is running with velocity u′ in the same direction as the train, what would be the velocity (u) of this passenger with respect to the observer standing on the platform?

Commonsense tells us that the velocity of the passenger must be equal to v+u′ with reference to the platform observer i.e.

u = v+ u′

But apparently that is not true according to our Goddess of Relativity. Here is the weird formula of adding velocities-

One may wonder from where the c2 comes. According to the relativists, ‘c’ is the speed of light (SOL) in vacuum (3×108 m/sec). The whole purpose of this weird formula is to ‘prove’ that SOL is same to every observer.

Now imagine a space ship moving towards a distant planet with velocity 0.5c (v) with reference to us. If a light beam leaves the spaceship with velocity ‘c’ (u′) towards same planet, common sense tells us that the light beam must be travelling at 1.5c with respect to us standing on the earth. But if we use the above relativistic velocity addition formula, we will be ‘surprised’ to realise that the velocity of the light beam remains as ‘c’ even with respect to us.

It is hardly mind blowing because the above relativistic formula was built upon the weird assumption of constant speed of light. So obviously we will get the same ‘c’ for speed of light even for observers moving at different velocities.

From the same stupid law of constant speed of light follow the time dilation and space contraction equations.

Time dilation: Relativity preaches that moving objects/clocks experience time dilation which is given by the formula


t’ is time run in the moving frame

t is time run in the resting frame

‘v’ is the velocity of the moving clock with respect to the resting clock and ‘c’ is the speed of light in vacuum

To know how the stupid folk have arrived at this stupid formula of time dilation, read Photon Clock and the Maya of Time Dilation.

Length contraction: the same theory predicts that moving objects experience length contraction which is given by

l' = l * sqrt(1 - (v²/c²))

where l’ is the length of an object measured by a moving observer and l is the length of the same object as measured by an observer at rest with the object.

Stupid assumptions can be supported by stupid Maths

Stupid model 1: We can assume- The sum of any two natural numbers equals 1.

To ‘prove’ the above, I can formulate weird maths. For example let us add the numbers ‘x’ and ‘y’ as per this weird model-


We know this formula of adding numbers is weird, and so is the addition of velocities in relativity.

Stupid model 2: We know from common sense and experience that 2×3=8 is not a correct mathematical statement.

But we can make it ‘true’ if we make some weird assumptions like 3=4 or 6=8.

But these assumptions are wrong, hence any model built upon them will also be wrong (even if some experiment appears to support the model). Same thing applies to the mathematics of Relativity which was built upon the irrational and weird assumption of constant speed of light.

Of course, at times a weird model may appear to have some strong observational support if one is not diligent. Apart from relativity, here are few such models.

Absurd Model 3: One may assume that the actual value of the numbers decrease as we ascend- i.e. 1>10>100>1000. A theory based upon this weird assumption obviously yields weird predictions that contradict our commonsense.

It might appear to ‘correctly’ explain few things/observations in our everyday life- For example this model might explain why older people despite ‘more’ age perish while younger people with fewer years survive better. It might also explain why 5mm grass weeds withstand winds better than 1000mm taller trees. But just because this model ‘correctly’ explained some observations in our Natural world, we can’t throw away our commonsense in favour of the absurd theory that is built upon an absurd assumption. (Similarly just because relativity explained Mercury’s perihelion shift, it can’t overthrow all our commonsense)

Absurd Model 4: ‘X’centric theory: One may assume that Mr X is in absolute rest in this universe and everything else in this universe moves with respect to Him. I am sure the spoilt mathematical brains of modern physicists can ‘weave’ an ugly but strong mathematical model to support this absurd belief. The observation that he doesn’t go to the coffee vendor to drink coffee, but the coffee itself comes to his table may be argued as proof the ‘X’centric theory. Also the fact that he doesn’t go out to meet people but people themselves come to his office can be argued as additional proof. If any body notices Mr X walking out of his office and tries to argue that as proof against the ‘X’centric theory, we can easily discard that as mere delusion of the unintelligent observer. We can argue “it was actually not Mr X who went to the market but it was the space-time which moved around Him and gave the impression that He moved”. But why should we discard what we have actually seen and imagine what we haven’t really observed? Well because that’s what our ‘X’centric theory (which has strong mathematics and also been proven beyond doubt by many observations) predicts and dictates. And we can argue “any kind of motion of Mr X is simply prohibited by the theory”. That is exactly how the stupid relativists argue and prove time dilation for the cosmic ray muons.

Absurd Model 5: Snail Relativity: One may propose that a snail is the fastest moving thing in this universe. One may state that it’s speed ‘S’ represents the speed limit of the universe. One may also add- the speed of the snail is constant to all observers irrespective of their motion. For those who demand for supportive maths, the same mathematics of relativity should suffice (one has to just substitute ‘S’ in place of ‘c’). And one just needs to make appropriate provisions for time dilation and space contraction similar to those of relativity.

If you have noticed a snail moving only 1mm in one second while a rocket moved 10000mm in the ‘same’ time, you must inference that the racket had experienced time dilation and space contraction. As the rocket travels at close to the speed of snail, its time dilates enormously. So, in the reference frame of the rocket, it only moved less than 1mm in one second. ”You are nobody to argue against what the rocket feels or experiences. After all, your reference frame is very different from that of the rocket and hence you can’t use your commonsense. Only mathematics can predict what happens in the rocket’s reference frame” the stupid theorist might argue just like how our relativists do.

But before we dispose our commonsense and logic and believe in the counterintuitive predictions of any new theory, two criteria must be satisfied

1) The new assumption upon which the new theory is based (e.g. constancy of speed of light) though appear weird at first, must have been arrived at by logical deduction. Or/and

2) It’s weird assumption must have been proven beyond doubt by experimental data and no better alternative explanations must exist for the observed data that appear to support the weird assumption.

Relativity fails in both the criteria.

Of course relativists have a superstitious belief in relativity and its weird predictions. These mesmerised brains believe that their superstitions have been proven beyond doubt by many experiments. But one doesn’t need a very high IQ to realise their distorted interpretation of the experiments that they swear as proof of their weird theory.

Go to Next Page

Go to Main Index

Age paradox and Perihelion Shift

Despite their triumph with relativity and quantum theories, one paradox remained hard to solve for the scientists of the Era of ridiculous science. Why people as they grow and accrue more years become weak and perish while the younger with less age survive better? How come growth is a bad thing?

Of course there was an old saying- to grow is to perish. But explanations based upon reasoning, commonsense, experience and old sayings etc were not accepted by the religious scientists of the ridiculous science who believe only in the God of Maths. So everyone was eagerly waiting for a theory backed up by strong maths.

Finally a scientist proposed the long awaited theory to explain this paradox- “we will have to abandon our traditional thinking/ understanding of numbers. The value we attach to the numbers must be reversed. That is, smaller numbers must be assumed to have greater value than the bigger numbers. So the value of the numbers will go down as we count 1, 2, 3…. 1000 and so on”.

According to this great weird model, older people aged 80, 90, 100 etc have less value than the younger people aged 1, 10 and so on. Now it is no more a paradox that the less valued older people perish easily.

The rational scientific minds cried- ‘this is irrational and not science’.

The scientist replied “our world is an illusion and hence what we perceive, think and experience may not actually be correct. So we can’t simply rely upon our commonsense. My theory though appears irrational and against our intuition, it has good maths and accurately explained the long plagued ‘age paradox’. More over this model also explains another observation – 5mm (greater value) grass weeds better withstand winds than 10000mm (lesser value) long trees. We know relativity theory is weird but it correctly explained the Mercury perihelion shift and has strong maths”.

The irrational scientific world readily embraced this theory of relativity of numbers and the scientist was hailed as another Einstein.

“A 10kg cereal forms a much bigger heap than 1kg of the same. And 60 seconds is 60 times longer than 1 second- so more is not less” the rational minds continued to argue.

“Well, people have also been questioning the theory of relativity with similar arguments.  The problem is that these rational people don’t have a sense of maths and hence can’t grasp ideas like time dilation and space contraction. They don’t realize that 1 sec can actually be much longer than 60 sec and 1kg rice can form a bigger heap than 10kg rice, depending upon the reference frame one uses. For one to understand this cutting edge science, one should just believe in maths and not cling to rationality” the religious preaching went on.

“A person can travel into his past, kill his grandfather and comeback into the present and still be alive despite his grandfather was killed before his father was born! Nobody with commonsense can explain this paradox but Relativity does. We are proud of our religion of irrational science”.