Unlike subatomic particles, this blatant lie cannot be salvaged with resort to the world of magic. Fraud scientists, like Einstein, have decided, erroneously, that light, uniquely, has a constant speed. In other words, if you were chasing after a beam of light, you would measure it going the same speed as would a stationary observer. We have a word for this: Bullshit (I am using the term not in its derogatory sense, but in its technical sense, as extensively defined by Cambridge Professor Harry G. Frankfurt in his book by the same title.)
There are many ways that we can know that the constancy of the speed of light is bullshit in the technical sense. The most valuable method is common sense. Think about it. Think about things that move. Is light one of those things? Yes. Can you move? Yes. Can you catch up to things? Yes. Is light a thing? Yes. Then you can therefore catch up to light, by the transitive property. You might doubt that just “thinking” about it is scientific. But little do you probably know, thought can be a scientific experiment. The literature on this is penultimate. For example, see here.
The second method is a bit more technical, appealing to pure logic rather than thought. Here we have to employ a reduction ad absurtion argument. The alleged constancy of the (also alleged) speed of (so-called) light leads us to absolutely ridiculous consequences. The proof? Well, according to Wikipedia, “[This ridiculous idea] leads to some unusual consequences for velocities.” There is simply no place for the “unusual” in science, especially relating to something as straightforward as velocity.
Einstein, who Hitler was right about, also had some kind of crazy idea about what would happen if one were to reach the speed of light. But this idea is now widely rejected even by the scientific community, that last bastion of sanctioned irrationality.
“It is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, and certainly not desirable, as one’s hat keeps blowing off” — Woody Allen
A wise remark from an autodidactic polymath!
LOL Godwin’s law.
Dear Someone,
I would dispute the application of Godwin’s Law to my post. I was not using the name “Hitler” in a polemical sense, but in a historical sense. Moreover I was mentioning him in a rare positive way, not a negative way.
But thanks for the lighthearted comment! The debates on this blog are getting exhausting…
I notice that your post doesn’t use any mathematics to “disprove” constancy of the speed of light. that alone is the tip-off that you really don’t understand the concepts of which you speak, and qualifies you as an A-1 quality fool.
Dear Dean:
My arguments are meant to be clear and non-technical for the average reader, yet also vigorous, rigorous, and all-around interesting! I think I have achieved this in most, if not all of, my posts. Take your haughty attitude elsewhere my friend!
Anyway, I mathematics are not necessary to disprove a theory that has empirical implications. If math tells me that it is raining outside, all I have to do is see that it is not in order to disprove math.
If my arguments don’t use mathematics, so much the worse for mathematics.
NS
I would be interested as to how you might explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Noted Scholar,
Unfortunately, your words refute your moniker. I find it highly implausible that you would be noted as a scholar while holding ideas like you espouse in this blog.
However, at the risk of tossing pearls to pigs, I will make an attempt to bring you up to speed with the rest of the world.
Light is not actually a “thing that moves.” It is a self-propagating wave of energy (which can also be treated as quantum packets of such energy) that propagate through the fabric of space at a speed that is determined by the fundamental nature of that space. Notably, the permiability and permitivity of the electrical and magnetic components of the wave. Now, I’m writing this from memory of my high school physics, since your argument does not warrant spending any time for research and composition, so please do not pounce on any minor innacuracies or misspellings. It has been a long time since high school, but you do not seem to have even that amount of education, so I will try to keep it in simple language for you.
The fundamental idea that led Einstein to his famous equations, and the notions that seem to offend your sensibilities, is that there is no preferred reference frame in the universe. For example, I should be able to discover the same laws of physics in my basement laboratory as you would in yours, even though we are moving in different directions due to our different locations on Earth.
But more importantly, that there must be no discernable difference between reference frames that are moving at a constand speed and those which are at rest. Imagine we are each in a transparent glass bubble floating in space. We each feel no movement, but at one point we each see the other float by. We each should be able to consider ourselves at rest, and the other to be moving, and since there is no preferred reference frame, we would both be justified in doing so.
But since the speed of light is determined by fundamental constants of space, which can be measured, we would both measure the speed of a passing light beam to be the same, since if it were otherwise then one of us could claim that he was the one who was “really” at rest while the other was “really” moving, meaning that one had a “preferred” reference frame (a stationary one) to the other (who would be moving).
So in order to allow us to move relative to each other, while maintaining our ability to claim an “at rest” (non-preferred) reference frame, the elements of our ability to measure time and distance must shift to compensate for our motion. For example, distance gets shorter in the direction of motion, and time slows down as our speed increases, so that we always measure the same speed of light and cannot thereby claim that we are in any kind of preferred reference frame.
Everything else follows from that, and if you do the math you can determine that for yourself. Assuming you’re willing to make that kind of effort to espouse something sensible, rather than depending on your experience and intuition, which are of course limited to speeds and conditions far removed from those where any noticable distortions of space and time would occur.
You obviously think that Einstein just dreamed up the idea of the constancy of the speed of light: in fact it was suggested by the Michelson Morley experiment, an experiment intended to measure the speed at which the earth moved through the “aether”, by measuring the speed of light in different directions, but actually ended up giving results that suggested the constancy of the speed of light. Einstein’s special theory of relativity was developed to try to account for this constancy. You have utterly failed to take the experimental results that predated relativity into account, and in the face of experimental results your views don’t count for much.
You said this: “There is simply no place for the “unusual” in science, especially relating to something as straightforward as velocity.”
“Unusual”, in this context, is probably not the best choice of words by the author and merely means “differing with everyday human intuition”. Our everyday experiences are a special case and it is hopelessly naive to expect that experience to map onto general laws. The fact that you said “something as straightforward as velocity” says a lot about your case: the whole point of relativity is that velocities are NOT straightforward. They don’t add up as our everyday intuition, and Galileo, say they should. That is because our everyday intuition has developed to deal with a special case in which relativistic effects are small and not noticeable and in which, because of this, velocities do seem to add up.
Regardless of any philosophy that you do, relativity works as a good predictive model. The equations of general relativity, an extension of the original special theory of relativity, are used in GPS systems to account for deviation of light by gravity. Without such correction, GPS calculations would be extremely inaccurate. Maybe you have an alternative approach that still lets us have accurate GPS, or do you wish us to shut down the GPS system while you are working on it?
I agree with Dean…
notedscholar, you’re stupid
you cant prove something with words…
because words are as real as your attempt at a hypothesis
you need solid facts to even attempt to disprove something
l2math
Wow. Just wow. Notedscholar, you have just been completely and entirely owned. I laugh. Haha.
Michelson-Morley experiment was a “null” result.
Would anyone care to prove that the theory of special relativity is actualy used to correct GPS systems (something that does not come off some Wiki). I guess some grunt “war fighter” in the nav center works it out on his pocket calculator. Show me one line on the official site that mentions it is used!. So I guess NASA spending billions to send up the Gravity Probe B (which resulted in failure to show the results predicted by Einstein) was a waste of money. They could have just asked the nav center and saved all that money. Wake up to reality Einsteins theory is bullshit, a high school student could prove it. Just take the formula time=distance/velocity which Einstein used to prove simultaneity his whole 1905 paper is based on this tb-ta=tAB/c-v and t1a-tb=TAB/c+v first he is saying when using c+v (faster than light) and comparing it using (c-v) the results are different and so simultaneity cannot be assumed Duh!, Two different events at different speeds one of which is faster than his constant. There are at least a dozen errors in his paper of 1905 Bad maths, Bad Physics Einstein should have stuck to reading patents science would be in a better position now.
relativity is bullshit, just like quantum mechanics which insist that universe operate one random chance of probability. clearly, the truth is exact opposite.
e=mc^2, what a bunch of bullshit. this is a twist of kinetic energy formula, which is in itself false.
e=1/2mv^2
Holy shit. You people amaze me. Put down the calculators, stowe the goddamn studies and wake the hell up.
The speed of any object can not alter the rate of nuclear fission. CAN YOU PATHETIC MATH GODS UNDERSTAND THAT HORRIFICALLY SIMPLE CONCEPT? If an object were to travel near the speed of light it would have no influence on the amount of heat and light our sun produces at any given time. Its really all downhill from there.
Its the math-gods and ignorant intellectuals that keep propegating this absurdity. I can no more control how quickly the earth revolves around the sun by traveling at the speed of light than I can ressurect my dead pet dog.
And stop humping the idea that the observations match the predictions- for God’s sake- Nobody understands, or claims to understand, quantum gravity. And until that day we do, every anomoly that has been used to prove special relativity is still just that- a misunderstood anomoly.
Thats it. Done. Shut the hell up now.
Christian K
AMEN
“There is simply no place for the ‘unusual’ in science”. This mindset of Noted Scholar explains a lot.
Nichevo,
Thank you for contributing to my research but could you explain?
Thank you now,
NS
Angel Plume,
The number of metaphors, allegories, and postmodern mumbo-jumbo in your post make it impossible to decipher. The “fabric” of space? I think you’ve been smoking the Brian Greene koolaid too long now! Ugh, I hate comments like yours, they are so full of babbling that people think it says something! But try to be clearer maybe, with a literal claim I can actually respond to!
Pessimistically,
NS
Paul,
Perhaps Angel Plume could learn from your clear prose! Maybe you can have a relationship!
You say about me that “it is hopelessly naive to think that experience maps on top of general laws.” That’s what they said about Martin Luther King! It has been said by him and others that a bad law is no law at all!
As for the experimental data, I would admit that relativity has predictive power – e.g. it predicts who will get into text books and on Nova programs, or who will get into graduate schools in physics and biology.
Friend,
NS
Ninjaplz,
If I can’t prove anything by words, than neither can you! But if you can’t, then you haven’t proven that I can’t! And so on ad absurdity.
Pathetic,
NS
Bob,
Not so cocky now, eh?
Haughty,
NS
Steve,
Thanks so much for the comment. I’m glad someone is willing to do the grunt work around here and scoop up all the grunts that leave their intellectual fecal matters all over my blog.
Grateful,
NS
Thank you Joe and Christian K. It’s nice to know that someone is actually LISTENS to my arguments.
Although I would say that you could perhaps be a little nicer to people. They are trapped a little, especially on the Internet.
Suggestion,
NS
Lenoxus,
On the unusual, I am just stating a truism of Occam’s razor. Please don’t make people think this is ridiculous. The state of science would become even worse!
Best to you and yours,
NS