Relativity Is 100% Wrong

1.2. Encounter with a Genius

I began studying Einstein’s theory entirely by chance. One day, at a nearby bookstore, I happened to notice a book with Einstein’s name on the cover. For reasons I still can’t explain, I suddenly felt an overwhelming urge to learn about his theories. Picking up that book was the moment everything started.

At the time, I knew almost nothing about Einstein—only that he was considered a genius. My only real memory was of doodling on his portrait in a school textbook, turning the great physicist into an old dog for fun. That was how indifferent I had been toward him.

Yet a decade later, without warning, I found myself wanting to learn from this genius. Humans can be remarkably self‑serving; after ignoring him for so long, I suddenly expected to gain something from him.

When I opened the book, an astonishing world unfolded before me. Words I had never associated with physics—time machines, black holes—pulled me straight into a four‑dimensional universe. It was then that I realized just how extraordinary Einstein’s intellect truly was.

Einstein had uncovered truths about the universe that countless brilliant minds had failed to solve, and he did it alone. Even more astonishing, he predicted many of these results through thought experiments and then proved them theoretically.

Overwhelmed by the depth of his insight, my interest shifted from the theory itself to the thought process that produced such miracles. Hoping to get even a little closer to understanding his genius, I decided to trace the origins of relativity—to return to the moment the theory was born.

I was certain that at that moment, profound discoveries and a sense of wonder awaited him.

1.2. Solving Relativity Through Fermat’s Last Theorem

Around the same time, I had become fascinated by unsolved problems in mathematics and was struggling through various challenges. One of them was the famous Fermat’s Last Theorem. For 350 years, no one had managed to prove it—a problem that looks deceptively simple at first glance, yet becomes a swamp the moment you start working on it. When the theorem was finally proven in recent years, it made headlines, and for good reason; some people devote their entire lives to this single problem.

As I tried out different ideas in my own way, there were moments when I felt certain I had finally cracked it. Each time, I would leap up in excitement, convinced I had solved one of the world’s great mysteries. But whenever I examined my reasoning carefully, I always found that I had overlooked something. Most of the time, the mistake came from forgetting to define an unknown function while dealing with quantities whose magnitude was unclear. Because such errors leave no visible trace, it’s easy to fool yourself into thinking you’ve succeeded. That is the peculiar danger of this kind of oversight.

Before I learned to recognize it, I made the same mistake repeatedly—celebrating wildly, only to be disappointed moments later. Eventually, I became extremely cautious about defining unknown functions properly. I had learned the hard way that overlooking a function can act as a powerful mathematical trick.

Most mathematical tricks rely on misleading numbers or symbols that test the reader’s attention. These can usually be uncovered by working through the problem carefully.

But a trick that relies on omitting a function is far more insidious. Because the missing function—the very seed of the trick—does not appear anywhere in the equations, you must rebuild the entire problem from scratch to discover where the function should have been. If you fail to notice that a trick has been set, this reconstruction never happens. As a result, the chance of detecting such a trick is dramatically lower than with ordinary mathematical puzzles.

I had never studied mathematical tricks in any formal way, yet the moment I opened my first book on relativity, I instinctively felt that it was using exactly this kind of omission. Thanks to my repeated failures with Fermat’s Last Theorem, I could immediately anticipate the mathematical consequences. And as expected, the so‑called relativistic effects displayed all the classic signs of a function‑omission trick.

Still, it seemed impossible that scholars around the world could have overlooked an error in Einstein’s theory. So I formed a different hypothesis:

Since I knew nothing about relativity at the time, this assumption felt like the most natural explanation. It took me about two weeks to reach a tentative conclusion—whether I had stumbled upon a discovery of the century, or whether it was just another false victory.

During those two weeks, I read through countless books on relativity. Not a single one offered anything less than glowing praise—every author described it as a theory that had revolutionized physics. Yet at the same time, I noticed something else: every explanatory book contained at least one instance of the same kind of overlooked function. Without exception. What had begun as a false hope gradually solidified into a strong conviction.

Since becoming interested in Einstein, I had never once doubted his theory. All I wanted was to understand it correctly. But every attempt at verification pointed to the same conclusion:

“Einstein’s theory is a sophisticated mathematical trick that has deceived the entire world.”

1.3. Look at the Initial Conditions

The origin of the mistake in relativity lies in a simple oversight Einstein made while translating his thought experiments into mathematical form—an oversight rooted, perhaps, in his discomfort with arithmetic. To examine relativity critically, there is no need to wrestle with complicated equations; focusing on the basic principles of mathematics is more than enough.

In fact, the only stage that truly requires scrutiny is the initial setup, before any equations are expanded. This foundational step has been left almost entirely unexamined. While the derivations that follow—the algebraic manipulations and the resulting relationships—have been analyzed exhaustively, the mathematical act of formulating the theory has somehow escaped verification altogether. It is puzzling that no one has questioned this stage.

Perhaps the reason is simply that the oversight is too elementary. No one imagined that the world’s greatest scientists and mathematicians could all make the same basic mistake. The fact that no one bothered to check reveals just how strongly our preconceptions constrain our actions.

Debate usually begins only after the principle of the constancy of the speed of light has been translated into equations. Once contradictions appear, the discussion becomes even more heated. At that point, no one is willing to go back and examine the mathematics that came before the equations existed.

That is precisely why it may be worthwhile to do what no one else has attempted: to verify the initial assumptions themselves. Exploring an uncharted area often yields far greater results than expected.

1.4. Hunting for Contradictions Is a Waste of Time

Once you begin to doubt a theory, every inconsistency starts to bother you. These inconsistencies—often called paradoxes—appear one after another as you work through the equations. In most scientific theories, contradictions would be unacceptable. Yet relativity treats even its contradictions as part of its character. Listing them one by one does nothing to solve the underlying problem.

The difficulty lies in recognizing that relativity itself is built out of mathematical contradictions. The theory is a collection of paradoxes, and the only reason this is not obvious is that the contradictions are woven into the mathematics in subtle ways.

Instead of wandering endlessly through an infinite maze of paradoxes, it is far more effective to identify the single mathematical cause that generates them all. Once you understand the mechanism behind relativity, searching for contradictions begins to feel pointless. Addressing the mathematical issue at its root naturally diminishes any interest in the paradoxes themselves.

1.5. Focusing the Discussion on Mathematics

The primary goal of this book is to understand Einstein’s trick. But depending on how we approach it, we risk repeating the same unproductive debates that have persisted for a century. The reason relativity has wandered through a maze of unresolved arguments since its birth is simple: the discussion has been aimed at the wrong target.

It may be tempting to dive into physical interpretations or to analyze paradoxes—they certainly seem interesting—but doing so only distracts us from the mathematical oversight at the heart of the theory. Until the trick becomes unmistakably clear, we must avoid all physical verification. In particular, we should be wary of the “fabricated information” often repeated about relativity: that it has already been proven experimentally, or that it is used in modern devices. The more intriguing such claims sound, the more tempting they are to investigate, but resist the urge.

Keep firmly in mind that physical evidence is powerless before mathematical proof. If a device truly operates according to a flawed theory, then one reasonable explanation is that an undiscovered aspect of classical mechanics is compensating for relativity’s errors. If so, we can examine that possibility after dismantling relativity itself.

Verifying relativity is, in a sense, an attempt to understand why an older, consistent theory was replaced by one filled with contradictions. As a natural consequence of this process, we can expect to resolve some of the long‑standing problems in classical physics as well.

1.6. Think with Your Own Head

Relativity begins by demanding that we accept two principles without question:

the principle of relativity

the constancy of the speed of light

Readers who are accustomed to this approach may find it surprising, but as long as we adhere to the basics of mathematics, no new concepts are needed in this book. For scholars who have spent years wrestling with relativity, Einstein’s name alone may be enough to silence free thought.

kyo: “A theory this great simply cannot be wrong.”

It’s understandable that someone might think that way. But in mathematics, it shouldn’t matter who proposed a theory or how many brilliant people support it. Mathematics is about thinking with your own mind, following the fundamentals, and reaching conclusions through logic alone.

The same applies to this book: the final judgment is left entirely to the reader. Forcing you to accept the intermediate steps or the conclusion would be meaningless. What matters is that each person forms their own understanding.

When it comes to unraveling the mysteries of relativity, the key is this:

“How faithfully can you pursue mathematical facts without being influenced by anyone else’s authority?”

Only by thinking and acting independently can you recognize the trick and discover it for yourself.

1.7. Omissions Lead to Oversights

Here is a simple equation. What belongs in the blank?

1 + 1 = □

Even a child can answer this. People who are used to efficient, streamlined calculations tend to stop immediately and say:

kyo: “The answer is obviously 2. What else could it be?”

This reaction comes from the assumption:

ein: “Solutions should be simple and free of unnecessary complexity.”

That assumption narrows the range of possible answers. If you let go of the obsession with simplicity, you quickly realize that many other expressions could fit.

1 + 1, 0 + 2, 3 − 1, 0.5 + 1.5, …

As long as the equation evaluates to 2, the blank does not have to contain the number 2 itself. There are infinitely many expressions that satisfy the equality.

The more you insist on simplicity, the more you restrict the possible answers—and the more likely you are to overlook something. This is one of the fascinating, yet dangerous, aspects of mathematics.

1.8. What “Answers” Mean in Physics

In mathematics, an “answer” often refers to a form that is easy for humans to understand. Most of the time, deriving an answer simply means transforming an existing equation into a simpler expression. If we think about this more carefully, once an equation is fully constructed, the answer is already determined—only its form is not yet simple.

In other words:

“The answer is known the moment the equation is created; it just hasn’t been simplified yet.”

An equation exists because the relationships between quantities are already understood. If the relationships are known, then the answer is essentially known as well. It is only because the expression is still complicated that we hesitate to call it the “answer.”

This is a perfectly ordinary mathematical viewpoint. However, extending this idea directly into physics creates problems.

If you believe that:

“The answer must be simple,”

then you may fall into the illusion that:

“Equations are merely tools for obtaining the answer, not the answer itself.”

But in reality, once the relational equation is established, nothing remains unknown. If a thought experiment produces an equation and the final result is obtained merely by algebraic manipulation, then:

The unsimplified answer already existed at the moment the equation was created.

When we trace the origin of the strange equations in relativity, we eventually arrive at the stage where the equations were constructed during the thought experiment. If we assume that no mistakes were made during that construction, then the “answer” must have arisen at the thought‑experiment stage itself.

This suggests the possibility that:

The answer was created in the imagination.

Therefore, verification must go all the way back to the initial assumptions.

In physics, the belief that “the answer must be simple” narrows the scope of what we examine. The reason relativity’s initial setup is rarely scrutinized is that the “answer” embedded in the construction stage has been overlooked.

1.9. Resetting the Mathematics

The fact that various numbers and letters can be inserted into the blank earlier is proof that mathematics is functioning. You might insert strange numbers, but that still means mathematics can be used as intended. However, try to show a state in which mathematics does not function as intended. In other words, fill the blank with something that makes mathematics stop working. It may not be very practical, but creating a formula that represents a non-functioning state of mathematics is easy. By adding just three characters to the beginning of the previous blank, the goal can be achieved.

1 = 1

This alone is more than enough to break everything. Once 1 = 1 or 1 + 1 = 2 no longer hold, all calculations become invalid. Each individual symbol loses its original mathematical meaning. This is the formula that resets mathematics.

However, it also becomes a symbol that indicates the meaninglessness of mathematical expressions. The mathematics we normally use is based on the assumption that equations like 1 + 1 = 2 hold true. This symbol represents a state in which no mathematical expression holds.

It seems that all numbers can become invalid. By connecting unequal things with an equals sign, or equal things with an inequality sign, the same effect occurs.

0 = 1, 1 = 2, 3 = 1
Or,
0 ≠ 0,1 ≠ 1, 100 = 100.

These are examples.

Once mathematics becomes invalid, it can never return. Any expression that follows loses meaning because the numbers within it no longer carry meaning. In other words, they become a group of meaningless symbols. You could call it a formula that interrupts mathematics. For us, who can create a state in which mathematics does not function, this is an astonishingly powerful formula—one that denies not only mathematics but even semiotics itself.

1.10. The True Nature of Relativity

The statement 1 = 1 is a concept required for every kind of calculation, yet it is so obvious that no one consciously thinks about it. In contrast, 1 ≠ 1 is useless, and no one has ever even considered using it in a discussion.

So why must such an unnecessary expression appear here? The reason is simple:

Because the theory of relativity is essentially “1 ≠ 1.”

In 1905, an unknown young man published the “theory of relativity,” but due to an oversight in his reasoning,

he expanded the equations while omitting an unknown function.

As a result, mathematics was effectively “reset” at a very early stage of the theory.

However, the reset expression itself was hidden inside the equations in a transformed form, so no one noticed what had happened.

Consequently, when the time came to substitute numerical values into the derived equations, many contradictions emerged. Naturally, the cause was that the concept of 1 = 1 was being applied to a theory in which 1 ≠ 1 had already been formed.

If anyone had realized that 1 ≠ 1 was embedded in the theory, no one would have attempted to substitute numbers into it in the first place.

1.11. Anyone Can Verify It

To examine modern physics—which has been distorted by Einstein and later scientists—you do not need expensive experimental equipment. One method is simply to search for this particular expression within the theory itself.

Before reading further in this book, it might be interesting to open a commentary on relativity and try to locate that part on your own.

You will likely be surprised to discover that modern physics is seriously studying a strange mathematical trick.

However, even if I were to give more detailed hints here, I think it would still be difficult to find the 1 ≠ 1 hidden within the theory. History has shown that the tricks devised by geniuses are not easily uncovered.

For those who wish to verify relativity on their own, I will list only the key points to focus on. Feel free to challenge yourself.

Points of Focus

Be cautious if an unknown function is defined.

Be cautious if the theory moves back and forth between coordinate systems.

Be cautious if different coordinate systems appear within the same equation.

Be cautious if zero is assigned.

Be cautious if infinity is assigned.

Be cautious if values are substituted.

Be cautious if definitions or units are omitted.

1.12. Were Particle Accelerators Designed Using Relativity?

h2_00_05 h2_00_05 h2_00_05 h2_00_05 h2_00_05 h2_00_05

• none
• 222
• 333

• li_hatena
• 222
• 333

• li_ga
• 222
• 333

• li_max
• 222
• 333

• li_ein
• 222
• 333

• li_kyo
• 222
• 333

• li_00
• 222
• 333

• li_01
• 222
• 333

• li_02
• 222
• 333

• li_03
• 222
• 333

• li_04
• 222
• 333

• li_05
• 222
• 333

• bc_hatena
• bc_ga
• bc_max
• bc_ein
• bc_kyo
• bc_02
• bc_01
• bc_02
• bc_03
• bc_04
• bc_05
• 222
• 333

h2 _06 h2 _06 h2 _06h2 _06h2 _06h2 _06

!---------▲--/box_ein--------------->