Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
We can conceive of an
instantaneous physical
mechanism

    1.0   The mathematicians rejected Newton's universal law because they couldn't model it with particles

    One day, a reviewer of one of my papers denied that instantaneity is conceivable:

    “ No force of nature can be truly instantaneous because that violates the causality principle,
       requiring magic.”

    “ Instantaneous gravitational potential would not allow light-bending, gravitational redshift,
       perihelion advance, Shapiro delay, or gravitational waves.”

    “ No one claims gravitational potential is, or can be, instantaneous. Only gravitational force
       and potential gradients are near-instantaneous”

    “ Nothing physical can ‘tug’ on something else instantly.”

    The context of our conversation was whether an instantaneous mechanism is conceivable and not
    whether such a mechanism is realistic or depicts the actual Universe. It is important to distinguish
    between the two notions because the mathematicians have rejected Newton’s theory on the basis that
    they cannot even imagine an instantaneous mechanism that can model his equation:

    “ That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the
       mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be
       conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man
       who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” [1] [2]

    “ it is widely accepted, even if less widely known, that the speed of gravity in Newton’s
       Universal Law is unconditionally infinite… there has not been a good scientific explanation
       of how this could ever be possible” [3]

    Newton's equation absolutely demands that the gravitational 'potential' change instantly if either object
    moves. Intuition and common sense prevailed, and the mathematicians eventually realized that it was
    impossible to model this behavior. This is the reason that they finally abandoned Newton and adopted
    Einstein.

    Unfortunately, they rejected this proposal for the wrong reasons. The reason Newton and his successors
    had trouble simulating instantaneous action is that the mathematicians have not proposed anything other
    than particles and waves in the last 400 years! Traveling particles and waves necessarily lead to a logical
    contradiction. It is irrational to attempt to simulate an instantaneous potential or tension (a static concept)
    with one-way particles and waves (dynamic concepts). The proponent is attempting to condense a movie
    of a traveling entity in a still image:

    “ Viewing gravity as a force that propagates from Sun to Earth, the Sun's gravity
       should appear to emanate from the position the Sun occupied when the gravity
       now arriving left the Sun.”  [4]

    The word instantaneous implies and has to do with a static scenario. Whatever is genuinely
    instantaneous should take up a single frame in a movie. We cannot take a photograph of a particle
    traveling instantaneously from A to B because the event takes up more than one frame in the movie. The
    word ‘traveling’ implies that we are contemplating two or more still images. It is not that instantaneous
    motion is difficult to measure or to visualize. It is that instantaneous motion is a logical contradiction, an
    oxymoron, a self-defeating proposition.

    In the next section of this module, I show that gravity is not a force as the idiots of Mathematics believe.
    Indeed, this should have become clear to the mathematicians from the fact that Newton's equation
    admittedly acts instantaneously! Gravity, like weight, had better be instantaneous! You should feel gravity
    at every moment and not have to wait for it as Einstein's stupid idiots suggest. As soon as you move an
    inch, your  weight should change instantaneously because weight is defined for a given location. Gravity,
    like weight, is only valid for a given cross-section of time.

    Verify Newton's irrationality yourself at home without the input of an idiot from Oxford or Caltech to look
    over your shoulder. Make a movie of a ball rolling down the stairs or of a cat jumping over the fence. Look
    at each frame of the film. Do you see movement in any of them? This is what this birdbrain Newton was
    attempting to visualize. He was searching for motion within a photograph! The idiots of relativity followed
    suit. They created the infamous event, a dot comprised of motion.


    2.0   Visualizing  FTL and physical instantaneity

    Here I will not bore the reader with senseless equations, but rather illustrate two physical mechanisms:
    one faster than light and the other depicting instantaneity. I will show first that they are conceptually
    logical and then that they are also possible. Let’s not yet worry about whether instantaneity is feasible in
    the real world out there. We must begin by conceptualizing instantaneity. Therefore, keep in mind that the
    assumptions that follow are not yet designed to explain the real universe. For the moment, I will use them
    simply to make a point.

    An assumption includes as a minimum an illustration of a physical object. Without a physical object the     
    prosecutors cannot even begin to make their case. I challenged the argument – actually an excuse – that
    Physics can also move  concepts. Such a proposal belongs squarely within religion. Mathematicians
    would do well to review the arguments before they continue. In a nutshell, a concept, whether static or
    dynamic, invokes a minimum of two  objects. Hence, even concepts are predicated on the definition of the
    word object, and this makes it mandatory for the presenter to produce the goose that lays the golden
    eggs. The proponent has no option but to start with a physical object in Physics. Only a physical object
    may serve as the subject that carries out an action in Physics. This requirement of the scientific method
    summarily eliminates concepts such as time, field, strings, point particles, waves, and energy. The object
    at the center of attention must be a standalone figure that all jurors can visualize (i.e., the proponent must
    be able to illustrate and make a movie of what he is referring to – nothing less than this will do). After the
    prosecutors make it past the ‘exhibits’ stage, they can do anything they want with the objects except
    amend them retroactively. Therefore, we don’t need an equation to model FTL or instantaneity. What we
    need is a valid object.

    Let’s first illustrate how a physical object can simulate faster than light (FTL) speed. Again, the
    assumptions are critical. Let’s suppose that there are two rigid picket fences or walls 300,000 km in length
    sliding perpendicular to and through each other at a speed 90% of that of light (Fig. 1). By rigid I mean that
    each is made of a  single piece. By definition, a rigid object cannot contract, bend, or deform in any way.
    Trapped between them is a rigid sphere that rolls freely (frictionless) on the same plane. We know nothing
    of the mass or weight of any of the participants, and we will dispense with any experiments or observers.
    From a strictly conceptual point of view, the ball will travel more than 300,000 km from point P to point Q
    after 1 second. If we allow the walls to close in a pincer-like movement, the sphere may be conceived to
    slide even faster.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/01/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008

    Now let’s look at instantaneity. I will assume that there is a rigid stick. This means that the stick neither
    stretches nor warps as it sits on the floor or leans against a wall (Fig. 2). As the end at W slides on the floor
    towards the object located at Z, the end at A slides downwards along the wall towards the object located
    at O. There is no delay in the transmission of the signal from W to A because of the assumptions I just
    made. Note that this has nothing to do with observers or measurement or Mathematics. From a strictly
    conceptual perspective it follows that, if the stick is ideally rigid, endpoints A and W will move
    simultaneously.

Fig. 1   FTL travel for a physical object

Fig. 2   Instantaneous action-at-a-distance (AAAD)
As endpoint B slides towards P it pulls instantly on
endpoint A. The assumptions are crucial: the stick is
ideally rigid. (Gravity is also assumed, but this is
immaterial to the central issue). An observer seeing
only the points A, O, and P may be led to conclude
that O emits a flurry of invisible particles at A to
attract it and  to P to repel it. These particles would
have to travel instantly in order to justify the
observed instantaneous and continuous potential A
is subject to at every location in its motion towards O
when in fact nothing of the sort really happened.
As Wall a sweeps from PS to
RQ and Wall b sweeps from
RP to QS both at 0.9c, the
rigid sphere trapped between
them moves from P to Q at >
c. The lengths of PS and PR
are 300,000 km. This shows
that we can visualize a
physical (i.e.,classical) FTL
mechanism.

And this is my famous
instantaneous kick, Bill. I do
it in zero time, so you can't
see it coming! Do you still
believe that instantaneous
motion is impossible?
Ah? Steve?
I think you busted my
jaw bone. But for some
strange reason I feel no
pain. It's a weird sensation,
as if my head were
dangling from my body.

    The purpose of this kindergarten exercise was as much to show that an instantaneous mechanism of
    transmission is conceivable as it was to highlight the importance of assumptions. Now let's see if we can
    model instantaneous 'action'-at-a-distance with a real mechanism.