Now, some geniuses sit down and decide that light speed is a constant, regardless of whatever reference frame is used, and that an equation such as the one shown above is actually valid, simply because if one puts anything in the form of a very complicated and very "learned-looking" expression then it covers up for the fact that the people have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
An observant person would notice that the symbols are, to aid inscrutability, mainly in Greek, of course
Let us take a look at a simpler version of this 'high' physics:
According to Johannes Kepler, the motion of the planets is governed by three laws, of which some illustation is shown below:
Law 1; the orbit of any planet is an ellipse with the sun at one of the two foci .
Now, what is being SAID?In simple English, it appears that a planet which, according to Sir Isaac Newton,[the planet attracts the Sun, and vice versa with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the two bodies and inversely proportional to the square of their seperation distance] ought to therefore move towards the sun if the force of attraction is actually "attractive", actually decides NOT to do any such thing but moves in, not even a pure circle but a sort of stretched-out-at-two-ends circle that ends up with it speeding sometimes and then slowing down sometimes so that the area it DOES NOT cover [but which an imaginary line does in its stead, the line "joining" the two] remains the same, thus conforming to some unwritten law of the Universe based on a mathematical model used by people who never had to use the math to DO something practical with it... otherwise they would know that a "period", i.e. "time" can not really be squared!
Counting Numbers...What next?
