Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
A mathematician also claims to
deduce shape from measurement

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 02/04/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008

    Disney asserts that he can prove to you whether something is flat through careful observation or
    measurement:

    “ one cannot mathematically prove, as Euclid had asserted, that space is everywhere
       ‘straight’ or ‘flat.’ ” (p. 65) [1]

    [Right! Math is exclusively a quantitative language of symbols. It cannot help us infer
     any qualitative aspect of nature. Math has absolutely nothing to do with the real,
     physical world.]

    “ Whether it is or not can be determined only by careful observation or measurement …
       Whether we believe our own space is curved or not must be determined by
       experiment.” (p. 65) [2]

    [Wrong! You don’t prove that a triangle or the surface of a table is flat with an experiment.
     If a triangle is flat, it is so pursuant to the definition of the word flat! It either is or isn’t.
     You don’t measure flatness. You define it! Regarding belief, you can believe anything
     you want. Whether you believe that a bowling ball is flat or not doesn’t concern Physics.
     It concerns Psychology and, in extreme cases, Psychiatry.]

    Relativists spend their time and your tax dollars trying to prove through measurement that the Universe is
    flat:

    “ Microwave background measurements point to flat, infinite space... Inflation theory
       explains flat space.” [3]

    “ A high-flying balloon that soared over Antarctica has answered one of cosmology's
       greatest questions by revealing that the fabric of the Universe is ‘flat’… Scientific
       opinion has moved towards a flat Universe and the latest data confirm this with
       greater certainty than ever before… the Universe’s expansion has been so great that
       space has now been stretched to the point that it is essentially flat.” [4]

    [The crucial word flat is in quotations because the author has not defined it. If you put
      him against the wall and ask whether he means that it is as thin as a circle or a triangle,
      he will throw a two hour fine print at you.]

    Actually, the flat universe relativists talk about has nothing to do with measuring curvature. Pursuant to
    their own proposal, a reading on an instrument will not tell them anything about the shape of the real
    universe or about the number of dimensions it has. We could just as well be living on the face of a 3-D cube,
    on the surface of an ‘infinitely’ large sphere, or on top of a perfectly flat, 2-D pancake or circle and still
    measure the surface of such a universe to be flat. The mathematicians are saying that the Universe is really
    a ball, but that this ball is so huge that for all practical purposes the surface can be regarded to be flat. The
    flat universe relativists describe follows strictly from the assumption that the spherical Universe is infinite
    and not from measurements. They are attempting to synthesize two irreconcilable notions into their
    hypothesis. The mathematicians are saying that space-time is simultaneously flat and curved.

    To complicate matters, relativists use the word flat inconsistently during their physical interpretations:

    “ To astronomers, flat means that… light not being bent by gravity travels in straight
       lines, not curves.” [5]

    In other words, some relativists believe that the word flat means that the spherical ocean is infinite and that
    locally we measure a flat surface (architecture). Others believe flat means that the fish swim in curves
    (motion) within the ocean. The former is conceptually static and has to do with length. The latter is dynamic
    and has to do with the distance traveled by a fish. One is a photograph. The other is a movie.

    So what are the mathematicians really talking about? Does flat allude to architecture or to motion?

    Assuming flat means that the ocean is infinite (i.e., refers to architecture), the ‘flatness’ relativists talk about
    again does not really have to do with curvature, but with size. A relativist still imagines space-time as a
    sphere. The word flat is a misnomer that alludes to the surface of a humongous ball.

    The bottom line is that the mathematicians explain their theories with words that conveniently have more
    than one interpretation. In the instant case, they are not using the strategic word flat consistently
    throughout their dissertation. On the one hand, they incongruously talk about the flat surface of a ball and
    on the other they attempt to measure flatness (architecture) by measuring itineraries (motion). This is
    irrational and unscientific. It is by relying on ambiguous and malleable definitions of strategic words such
    as flat that relativists have managed to cover all the bases. This helps explain why relativity has eluded
    falsification.
Hi all!
I am Professor Bill from the
Flat Universe Society, also known by its
acronym WMAP.    
I am here today to ask for your donations.