Special relativity is an artefact of human stupidity. Time dilation is a brain flatulation.

Time dilation can be inferred from the observed constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames dictated by the second postulate of special relativity. This constancy of the speed of light means that, counter to intuition, the speeds of material objects and light are not additive. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear greater by moving towards or away from the light source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

The speeds of material objects and sounds waves are not additive either. It is not possible to make the speed of sound appear greater by moving towards and away the sound source. The frequency yes, but not the speed. So what are these relative scientists arguing here ? That because the speed of light does not increase with the speed of the source, Einstein's theory is right ? They are clearly confused and do not understand how waves propagate in a medium.

The reason why they are not additive is because the speed of the sound wave only depends on the properties of the medium. It does not depend on the properties of the source. A moving source will only change the perceived frequency and wavelength of a sound wave due to the Doppler effect. So the speed of waves in different frames is entirely and absolutely dependent of their medium of propagation and has absolutely nothing to do with the moving of the source in the medium. That is why the speed of sound waves remains constant in different frames.

Why would we expect the speed of light waves to be different in different frames ?


NASA wrote:The speed of transmission of the sound remains a constant regardless of the frequency or the wavelength. The speed of sound only depends on the state of the air (or gas) not on the characteristics of the generating source.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/doppler.html

Even the relative scientists from NASA understand that the speed of sound waves remains a constant regardless of the movement of the source or observer (which changes frequency/wavelength due to Doppler effect), because it only depends on the medium. But they can't apply the same basic principle of wave propagation to light waves and aether, because they are absolute fools. Just like Einstein and all relative scientists are.

Who interpreted the Michelson-Morley experiment in the most foolish way possible, based on their foolish assumption or 'intuition' that the speed of the light wave should change depending on the movement of the earth source through the aether. And foolishly concluded that if there was no such change detected experimentally, then the medium of light waves did not exist. 

This shows that Einstein was right...when he said that human stupidity is infinite.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An introduction to Refractional Redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift (updated)

Image
  AN INTRODUCTION TO REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, AND HOW IT WAS CONFUSED WITH GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT. GENERAL RELATIVITY DEBUNKED. Marius L. Vasile @Vasile Effect   In this paper I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes, but the frequency remains constant. Since f=v/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too in order to preserve the frequency. This results in an increase of wavelength or a redshift when the s
Read more

Refractional redshift completely disproves General Relativity & Big Bang theory

Image
  An introduction to Refractional redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift Marius L. Vasile - absolute skeptic    ' Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches)' -Wikipedia ' Astronomers don't know anything '- Vasilepedia In this paper I will prove that refraction  causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of lig
Read more

Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Image
The theory of general relativity (which is the basis of the big-bang theory) is wrong, and I say this because, besides the fact that Einstein abberates that gravity is not a force, but a curvature of space and time, which is an absolute non-sense, not relative, and attributes geodesics to space and time, which is absolutely illogical because space does not have a surface (a geodesic is by definition related to a surface), and time does not have a surface either (the 'surface of time' is an aberration, as well as the 'surface of space', respectively the 'surface of space-time'), the experiments that have allegedly confirmed it are extremely illogical, if not downright stupid. There are three main tests of general relativity, and all of them disprove general relativity if they are interpreted correctly. I will first reffer to the one in which the Nobel laureates, scientists Pound and Rebka, used a Helium bag and air to demonstrate that gravity produces the change
Read more