www.einstein-online.info
Now let's imagine that station A is billions of times larger than station B and the stations are approaching each other at walking speed.
Now let's imagine that the stations are not passing each other but are colliding.
Now let's imagine that both stations are made of a flexible aluminum grid and are smeared with super strong glue – so at the moment of collision the stations merged into one system.
Observer B sees it all like this:
Standing on tiny station B suspended motionless in space, observer B observed that huge station A was slowly approaching. And when huge station A came into contact with tiny station B and the stations merged, huge station A carried tiny station B with it. And now observer B observes that the stations form one system in motion.
However, you, Dear Professors of Physics, proclaim that from the point of view of observer B, the system is at rest, just as station B was earlier.
And this is as absurd as what the village idiot from my village proclaims:
When a butterfly suspended motionless over a meadow observed that a flying cow was flying towards it, and after a moment the cow hit the butterfly and it clung to the cow, then the butterfly observed that at the moment of impact the cow stopped dead in its tracks, so that the butterfly continued to observe that it was motionless, and at the same time the butterfly observed that the entire meadow had moved under the cow and the butterfly, only in the direction opposite to the cow's previous movement; and now the butterfly observes that the cow and the butterfly are suspended in place and the meadow is flying under them.
Besides, the question arises:
Since from the point of view of observer B the system is at rest just as station B was earlier – as you, Dear Professors of Physics, proclaim – what happened to all this kinetic energy that from the point of view of observer B the huge station A had before it came into contact with tiny station B?
Within the framework of the idea of relativity of motion, the only answer to this question is that a she-goat ate it.
For observer B the system could be at rest only if the huge station A were like a cow suspended motionless above the meadow and the tiny station B were like a butterfly striking the cow so weakly that it didn't even move. But then for observer B, station B was in motion.
So whether it were in such way or another, it would always contradict what you, Dear Professors of Physics, proclaim.
So even to my she-goat it's obvious that this whole idea of relativity of motion has nothing to do with reality but is merely a COLLECTIVE DELUSION.
So even to my she-goat it's obvious that Newton's first law of motion according to which 'there is no distinction between bodies at rest and moving at constant speed' has nothing to do with reality but is merely a COLLECTIVE DELUSION.
So even to my she-goat it's obvious that Einstein's special theory of relativity, which is built on Newton's law, has nothing to do with reality but is merely a COLLECTIVE DELUSION.
So even to my she-goat it's obvious that this whole cosmology, which is built on Einstein's theory, has nothing to do with reality but is merely a COLLECTIVE DELUSION.
However, for you, Dear Professors of Physics, this isn't obvious. Instead, you consider all of these to be revealed truths. And this shows that you have less brains than my goat.
