1.0 The Way of Math
You see an equation on the board: y = x + 1. If you want to know the value of y, you must simply enter a
value for x and perform the calculation. For example, if x is equal to 1, y will be equal to 2. But this is a
single value, a single point on the chart. Equations are useful because we can plug in several values for x
and calculate several values for y. Now you don't have just one point on the chart, but a trend. You can
reach conclusions such as whether the line is going up or going down or zig-zagging. This in turn
enables you to draw certain types of conclusions. For example, if the subject matter is finance or money,
you may conclude that stock prices are going up or that the profits are coming down.
But what is a trend if not something in motion. You are watching a movie of something getting bigger or
smaller, or growing or shrinking. An equation is nothing but a symbolic expression of how something
moves. Mathematics deals ONLY with dynamic situations. It has no relevance whatsoever in the context
of static, structural scenarios. An equation cannot tell you what an invisible entity looks like.
The mathematician is still unconvinced. He has been conditioned to think that Math is everything and
without it we have nothing. Therefore, he places little weight (actually no weight at all) on intuition and
common sense, meaning his eyes. He truly believes that ultimately he will discover the underlying nature
of the Universe (what things are) through a set of equations. (Or maybe he doesn't care, and uses his
language a bit too liberally.) He purports to do this indirectly. He observes the behavior of an invisible
entity and deduces its structural nature. As far as the mathematician is concerned, all he has to do is
describe with an equation how the visible entity moves. If the mathematician can predict how the entity's
next move, he now has proof that his hunch was correct and his peers grant him a Nobel Prize. This is the
method the idiots of Mathematics have successfully used time and again. For instance, this is how the
mathematicians first 'predicted' and then confirmed the existence of black holes. They began by
theorizing that a black hole must be the result of an enormous 'mass' that shrinks to a point. Once they
convince each other of this nonsense, they move on to the 'proof' phase of their method of doing things.
One fine day, an astronomer focuses his telescope at the night sky and sees a large amount of gas
swirling around for no apparent reason. Ergo, the invisible entity is the long sought after black hole. Now
it is no longer a hypothesis or even a theory. Now we have experimental evidence for the existence of
black holes, and you are a rotten egg if you don't believe in them!
2.0 The Way of Science
Let's do a thought experiment to debunk this line of reasoning.
Take an inclined plane and a ball standing at starting point A as shown in Fig. 2. We release the ball and
it comes rolling down to point B where it strikes a button that lights up a panel (Fig. 3). The first thing we
realize is that we don’t need equations or numbers to explain any part of the physical phenomenon
before us. We only need Math if we wish to calculate how big the ball is, how much it weighs, or how
fast it rolls. If we simply want to tell someone ‘what occurred’ we just need ordinary speech.
3.0 The Way of Math again
The mathematician argues that he can bring his experience to bear on the issue. He calculates the mass
necessary to compress the button and the speed in which the entire event happens from the time he
releases the ‘thing’ at A to the time the lights go on at B. Perhaps a cube could have slid down the
inclined plane, but friction would slow it down. No. It must necessarily be a ball that rolls. A ball contacts
the inclined plane at a single point known as a tangent. He performs an experiment to certify his
intuition and confirms his guess. The ball more or less matches observation. It increases in speed as it
rolls down. No more speculation. It is now official. The entity in question is definitely a ball (Fig. 4). He
publishes a seminal paper and his peers give him a Nobel Prize in inclined planes, or maybe in rolling
balls. He now has the authority to spit on you if you doubt him.
It turns out that the famous rolling ball is really a coil, a reverse jack-in-the-box that is stretched at A and
compressed at B (Fig. 5). The spring does in fact slide along the inclined plane, but it functions
differently than would a cube. For example, the portion of the spring that is in contact with the inclined
plane is spread out over its length, and force is greater the more the coil is compressed. .
So again, the equations, functions, and measurements were misleading. The only way to reveal an
invisible entity is through what the idiots of Mathematics call ‘philosophy’. We first need to
conceptualize, to visualize, to use our intuition. The mathematician needs to make an assumption. Only
then can he later describe the object. Now he can model its behavior with Math. If the mathematicians
spend all their energies developing equations and taking measurements and ‘confirming’ through
experiments, but have the wrong hypothesis from the start, their work has been in vain.
4.0 Conclusions
The ridiculous theories of Mathematical Physics (relativity, quantum, and string theories) are afflicted
with the erroneous logic that equations, experiment, inference, and integration can give us a glimpse
of the invisible world of objects. Pastor Al, the founder of the Church of Relativity, believed that he
could infer structural aspects (shape, dimensionality) of our Universe from a set of equations. This is
how his followers concluded that our Universe looks like a ball which is supposed to be expanding.
He calls this idiocy space-time. Since the mathematicians claim also that they cannot see or even
imagine this ball, you have no choice but to accept this contraption at face value. Just to cover all the
bases, they add that there is nothing outside this ball providing contour. In fact, it is a bit worse than
this. The mathema-ticians have decreed that it is unscientific to even ask the question. If you tell one
of Einstein's idiots that space-time is just his opinion, he will tell you that it has been confirmed through
various experiments. Again, this line of thinking confirms that the mathematical physicists believe that
they can infer that space-time is a curved, physical object from a set of equations. In Science, there is
only one way to present a physical object, and that is to point to it.
| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Last modified 01/12/08
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
Fig. 2
|
| Fig. 3 Ball rolling down an inclined plane |
Fig. 3
|
Fig. 4 Inferring objects through Mathematics |
Fig. 5 Wrong guess! Mathematics cannot help us infer objects! We infer objects through the process of elimination. This process only involves qualitative considerations. |
| A mathematician claims to infer shape through equations and numbers |
Fig. 1 An invisible body rolling down the inclined plane of Mathematical Physics |
Now let’s assume that the entity in question (the ball) is invisible (Fig. 3). In fact, we don’t even know
whether it is a ball. We merely reproduce the results: ‘something’ strikes the button at B and lights up
the panel. Again, we realize that equations and numbers are of little use to diagnose the structural and
architectural nature of the invisible entity. Will writing x³ tell us that it was a cube, a sphere, a pyramid,
or a cylinder that rolled or slid down the plane?
- Module main page: Mathematical Physics is a religion
Pages in this module:
- 2. This page: A mathematician claims to infer shape through equations and numbers
3. A mathematician believes that a volume is an object
4. A mathematician also claims to deduce shape from measurement
5. A mathematician swears that the Universe is 4-D, but doesn't even understand the 2-D
| No. You're wrong. I did not see your shape by looking at your reflection in the window. I did it all with my calculator. |
