Losers at RationalWiki want a piece of my pageviews

Look at this. Apparently thinking they haven’t been discredited enough, the unorganized hate fest oxymoronically called Rational Wiki have put up a hit job on me. As you can see, it’s not gaining any steam. There are apparently a record number of gutless users who “vote” for my blog, but no one is willing to reveal themselves. Not surprising.

The moral of the story is: if you can’t take the heat, set up your own closed Internet society. In fact, take a page from Orwell and call it rational.

I assume that the real reason for the failed attempt on my credibility is my ever-blossoming pageviews, now fast approaching 20,000. A huge percentage of the math/science blogging audience, possibly over 100%.

Lastly, to repeat last post, sorry I haven’t written in so long. I’ve been swamped with transitioning to the new semester. Those of us associated with community colleges tend to focus more on actually teaching and learning than we do on furthering our own careers through so-called “research,” which is all-too-often a code word for bullshit.

Relativity and the speed of light

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.