## Tag Archives: speed of light

### 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

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-

x+y/x+y=1

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

### Layman and a Scientist

Layman: In the light of the observations on cosmic ray muons, why don’t we believe that muons could travel at 8×109 meters/sec having observed them travel 16000meters in 2 microseconds?

Scientist: because that exceeds the speed of light

Layman: then what?

Scientist: Special relativity (SR) prohibits speeds faster than light which is 3×108meters/sec.

Layman: on what grounds?

Scientist: From the law of constant speed of light

Layman: What is that?

Scientist: Speed of light is constant to all observers i.e light always travels at velocity ‘c’ i.e. 3×108meters/sec with reference to all observers irrespective of their own motion. A ‘stationary’ observer, a fast moving electron or the cosmic ray muon, all ‘measure’ the same speed of light.

Layman: how weird!

Scientist: Yes, it is weird but proven by many experiments including the muon’s time dilation.

Layman: ???

Scientist: So if light travels at speed ‘c’ with reference to the cosmic ray muon, how can the latter travel faster than light? Obviously it can’t. If at all something (e.g. cosmic ray muon) appears to travel faster than light, it is just an illusion. What actually happens there is time dilation and space contraction in muon’s reference frame. Obviously we can’t appreciate this in our reference frame.

Layman: Why should we believe in time dilation which we can’t appreciate, and ignore what we actually appreciate?

Scientist: Because that’s what is exactly predicted by the theory of special relativity.

Layman: Pardon me sir; but muon’s time dilation is a prediction or a proof of special relativity?

Scientist: The problem is you neither understand the mathematics nor the reference frames. Though the muon appears to travel 16000 meters in 2 microseconds, it is impossible according to special relativity and the law of constant speed of light. What actually happens is time dilation and space contraction in muon’s reference frame. So this muon’s time dilation proves special relativity.

Layman: I am feeling dizzy; it appears to me that we are going round and round. That could be my ignorance. May be muon’s time dilation is in fact true and possibly proves special relativity!

Scientist: Of course, numerous experiments have proven special relativity beyond doubt.

Layman: Now I am getting the gist of relativity. Everything in relativity is counterintuitive, isn’t it?

Scientist: Well, you are right but there is a lot more to go through before you can even dream of understanding relativity. Even I didn’t believe in it initially, but having seen the vast support and evidence, I had no choice but to accept it. And over the course of time, as I thoroughly understood the theory and the maths, I got converted and became a believer of relativity.

Layman: So, cosmic ray muons prove time dilation because nothing can travel faster than light. Is there an equally strong proof for the idea of constant speed of light?

Scientist: Well, plenty. Neutral pion decay and Michelson-Morley experiments are among the top. The former proves that the photon’s velocity is unaffected by that of the source. The latter proves many aspects of SR, but as a layman it will be too much for you to grasp.

Layman: I accept my ignorance. May be you can tell me about the pion’s story.

Scientist: You know, the velocity of a stone thrown out of a moving train depends upon the train’s velocity. That is, the velocity of any projectile/ emitted body depends upon the velocity of the source/ emitter.

Layman: Of course!

Scientist: But that’s not the case with light photons. We know velocity of light is ‘c’. Neutral pions are fundamental particles with a high velocity and emit photons as they decay.  If the neutral pion’s velocity is ‘x’, we would expect the emitted photons to move at speed ‘c+x’. But the photons were noted to travel at just ‘c’ in an experiment studying the decay of neutral pions. This proved beyond doubt that velocity of light is indeed constant and unaffected by that of the source.

Layman: Well, the speed of an engine (photon) obviously doesn’t depend upon the vehicle (pion) it was driving.

Scientist: What do you mean?

Layman: If the lone speed of a rail engine is 100kmph, this remains the same even when the engine gets detached from the moving train it was driving.

Imagine a horse which runs at 50kmph when free of load. Also imagine that this horse is pulling a cart at 40kmph. If the horse gets ‘released’ from this moving cart, it will only run at its original speed of 50kmph and not at 50+40kmph.

So like SOL, the speed of a horse and the speed of a rail engine are also constant!

Scientist: Neutral pion decay was a real observation which proved that the speed of light is constant. You are equating a real experiment and published evidence with your imaginary and silly experiments on bullock carts and rail engines.

Layman: I am only…

Scientist: You can’t make wild propositions without published evidence from peer reviewed journals and strong mathematics.

Layman: Sorry sir, I didn’t mean to dishonour science. I am just thinking that photons may be behaving just like horses and rail engines for the particles in the quantum world. If so, then we don’t need the weird law of constant speed of light to explain the observations on neutral pion decay!

Scientist: But that’s not what special relativity (SR) predicts.

Layman: I am again feeling giddy. I am not able to appreciate whether something is a logical conclusion, a proof or a prediction.

Scientist: Well, don’t forget that relativity is counterintuitive, so commonsense obviously fails. The problem is you don’t understand the maths. We the scientists are not fools to believe in relativity if this was wrong.

Layman: I realise that we the lay people shouldn’t try to understand Relativity but religiously believe in what the great scientists like you preach. Thank you sir.

(So we must not believe in what we have observed because that is simply prohibited by some weird theory. And we should believe in the weird phenomenon of time dilation, though we haven’t observed – because that is what is proposed by SR. Note the awkward logic here- Special relativity proposes time dilation. Time dilation then proves special relativity!!!

Dear ‘unscientific’ and ‘uneducated’ lay minds, read the full ‘stories’ of the cosmic ray muons and the neutral pions to realise how ‘intelligent’ are our great physicists)