Einstein told us that the speed of light must always, not only appear, but BE the same in every frame of reference no matter how fast we are moving towards or away from it. So even if you are moving at half the speed of light towards a light beam, the entire universe must conspire to either "speed up" or slow down your "time" to account for this difference.
If that makes sense to you, you are no longer sane. You cannot create scenarios of two mutually exclusive events at the same time and call that reality. This is fundamental to reason.
To show this contradiction, consider you are running away from a light beam and towards another at the same time. You move at half the speed of light. Of course in real life you will encounter the light you are moving towards first, but in Einstein's universe both beams MUST (in your world) hit you at the same time. However, in Einstein's universe, someone else will see them hit you at different times because they also MUST see light travel at a certain speed. This is just plain fucking stupid.
At best you can have an illusory effect, but to confuse that with a real difference in simultaneity is to truly give up on reason itself.
Your comment is all over the place and not very focused. My focus is a criticism of the broken logic of relativity.
To answer your question, I've taken all the math classes required for physicists, but I'm not claiming to be a mathematician or physicist. I am a critic from outside the field.
But one doesn't need advanced math to apply critical logic to a theory. A detective doesn't need calculus to prove someone guilty, but he does need sound logical reasoning. Focus on what you can grasp and deal with that first. I'm not someone who can check Einstein's tensor equations for their mathematical validity, and that isn't necessary (or time efficient).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics
Until the truth is seen, the left (math) and right hands will oppose each other.
It isn't just the math that needs re-examination.
"God is number." said Pythagoras as he "rediscovered" the monochord as teaching tool of HARMONY, the principle of Divine Geometry and Golden Proportions that are the characteristics of god's work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochord#/media/File:Fotothek_df_tg_0006469_Theosophie_%5E_Philosophie_%5E_Sonifikation_%5E_Musik_%5E_Musikinstrument.jpg
So from whence came both god/s and the math that explains/defines?
https://www.scribd.com/document/398575567/230403079-Jesus-Christ-Sun-of-God-Ancient-Cosmology-and-Early-Christian-Symbolism-by-David-R-Fideler-pdf
Number is ideation materialized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
No single equation could ever contain the All, as the part cannot contain the whole.
Ones consent to suggested relativism establishes a conflict of reason aka one side against another...both broken sides relating to each other by consent to the same suggested -ism.
All gives (inception) and takes (death) each one (life)...taking suggested math classes from one another tempts one to ignore that.
"I've taken all" implies the biggest claim one could make within all...
a) How could one suggest a theory without tempting another to agree or disagree, hence establishing logic/reason (agree vs disagree)?
b) Critic/krinein - "to separate"...consenting to a suggested theory implies "putting together", hence contradicting critic.
"Everyone's a critic" implies each ONE separated from ONE another...no logic/reason required for critic.