h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

After reading the article I can't help but think that the author is very confused. The four "lies" given as examples are statements of very different types and few, if any, are really deserving of the term.

1 Weight is constant.

I'd call this a useful approximation, not a lie.

2. Weight is not a constant. What's actually constant is mass.
3. Mass is not a constant, but depends on the velocity of the object, relative to lightspeed, which is a constant.

One of these statements is generally correct. Which one is correct is a matter of convention. The noun "mass" without an accompanying adjective is ambiguous. You need to specify "rest mass" or "inertial mass" before you can start talking about which statements are true.

4. Lightspeed is not, in fact, a constant, but may have been significantly larger than its current value during the early life of the universe.

This is just wild speculation, unsupported by any evidence.

"I'd call this a useful approximation, not a lie."

A useful approximation, or put another way, one of the "simplified versions of reality" that this entry mentions explicitly in its fifth sentence?

"The noun "mass" without an accompanying adjective is ambiguous"

Well, yes. But we don't teach KIDS that it's ambiguous, do we? We in fact teach them the opposite. Because it's a useful approximation. A simplified version of reality. A "lie".

"You need to specify "rest mass" or "inertial mass" before you can start talking about which statements are true. "

You need a fair degree of physics knowledge before the distinction between these two things becomes meaningful.

"This is just wild speculation, unsupported by any evidence"

Damn, you saw through it. If only the speculation had been qualified, by, say, including a statement like "it should be emphasised that this is only one possible solution to a set of very difficult questions".

Thanks for reading and commenting!