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 (ACCIDENTALLY – edit, 01/22/2016) 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.

“0.9999…. = 1”

This is an essential assumption of Bayes’s Calculus. If you doubt that this is common, then just take a cursory look at the mathematical community here, here, here, and here.  And here and here. Do you know what this means? It means that Calculus, like probability (see my deconstruction of probability), is false. The argument goes something like this:

0.333… is 1/3, right? Well 1/3×3=1. But surely 0.333…x3=0.999…! Therefore, by one or another form of the transitive property, 0.999…=1!

In addition to being a near-blasphemous usage of the transitive property, it is just plain false. Think about it in the following manner. 0.1 is necessarily greater than 0.0X, where ‘X’ is any countable number. 0.1 is also necessarily greater than 0.0XX. And so on. No matter how many X’s you add to the series, it will never equal or be greater to 0.1. Therefore, by mathematical induction a la carte, no amount of repetition of 0.0XXX…. could ever equal 0.1, which is what is necessary to add to 0.9 in order to equal 1. Importantly, (0.9 x / x<0.1)≠1 Λ (0.9 x / x<0.1)<1. Therefore Calculus is false. A house built on sand cannot divide itself.

Notice that all I needed to disprove this foundation of calculus was mathematical induction.

Advice to all my readers: Don’t let “math wizards” intimidate you with technobabble. And note that I am not alone.

“You can’t actually see light”

This claim is actually self-defeating – e.g., viciously circular. If we can’t see light, then how did we ever come to know how fast it is going?

According to proto-quantum physicist Rene Descartes, every cause has at least as much perfection as its effect (see his “Metamorphosis Five”). What are the effects of light? Well, according to influential Biblical scholar and philosopher of science Richard Dawkins, one function of the sun is that it helps us to see everything. This is called a “proper function” account of celestial bodies, a la carte Alvin Plantinga. I think it’s quite accurate. And the same goes for flashlights. And fires. Notice something? All of those involve light. So an effect of light is that we can see things. So the property of (let’s call it) being-able-to-see-it-fulness is a property conferred onto external objects by light. Therefore, by Descartes’ relatively uncontested principle of causation, light must have at least the property of being-able-to-see-it-fulness.

(You can also reach this same conclusion using the transitive property.)