Adapted for the Internet from:Why God Doesn't Exist
 A mathematician swears that the Universe is 4-D,but doesn't even understand the 2-D
?

The mathematicians claim that they can infer that the Universe is 4-D from a set of equations, yet they don't understand the
simple, 2-D world of Flatland. The analogies kicked around in the literature confirm that relativists encounter insurmountable
mental obstacles when it comes to describing the world of planes. One fellow describes what a Flatlander would see if a
cylinder fell through Flatland. According to this fanatic, the Flatlanders can see a single cross-section of the cylinder, a single
circle at a time as the cylinder traverses their 2-D space. But the hero of the story – no doubt a relativist – is smart. This Flatlander
mathematically integrates the circles and arrives at the cylinder:

" Suppose we are only 2D beings, living in a 2D world, and unable to see into the 3rd
dimension. Suppose we’re trying to understand what a cylinder is… What we can do,
is to examine what happens when a cylinder passes through our 2D world… As the
cylinder does this, we can observe its cross-sections with our planar world. For
example, if the cylinder descends through our world vertically, we would see a
series of circular cross-sections, all of a constant size." [1]

So let’s run the errors for the benefit of our intellectually impaired mathematical friends. A genuine Flatlander is 2-D and somehow
would have to see out of the edges of his particular geometry, that is, if he wants to stay in his flat world (Fig. 1).

" Understanding 1 dimensional space... The animation below shows the observer as a
grey line... The animated blue line is what he perceives" [2]

[A line seeing a line? In the best of cases that's 3-D! Actually, not even God can see
width all by itself. The only thing that is conceptually 1-D is an edge. However, an
edge is part of a plane which is part of a solid. There is no such thing as width all by
itself in Physics! If you can see it, it isn't 1-D!]

If the line of sight is perpendicular to the plane, then we are not talking about Flatland, but about Solid-land (Fig. 2). The scenario
is inherently 3-D. Either way, Mr. Square and Mr. Triangle should at best see a line and not a circle as the anonymous author of
the article proposes. If a circle faces another circle, for sure we are not talking about Flatland (Fig. 3). A mathematician is a person
who boasts that he can visualize the hyper-world of four dimensions yet cannot even conceptualize the simple 2-D world of
Flatland!
 Fig. 1   ‘Genuine’ Flatland
 Fig. 2Abbott’s perpendicular plane
 Fig. 3   A circle staring at a circle?
 If Mr. Circle’s line of sight is perpendicular to his body(i.e., he is staringperpendicular to hisdiameter), Flatland cuts himin half and he is staring along the 3rd dimension. This is3-D Solid-land disguised as Flatland. Relativists make this mistake over and over.
 If Mr. Circle sees another circle, whetherhe stares out of the corner of his circumference or out of his butt, we areno longer in Flatland. This is another incorrect version of Flatland thatrelativists construct routinely. Mr. Circle should not even be aware of his own shape.
 If Flatlanders have eyes, these eyes should be located at the edges of figures. The line of sight ofMr. Circle should run parallel to his body. If acylinder descended through Flatland, Mr. Circle should only see a line. Only then do we have a remote possibility of a 2-D world scenario. I say ‘remote’ because no one can even imagine a 1-Dline. The only lines we can visualize have widthand height (i.e., are 2-D), like the one Mr. Circle is imagining in the illustration.

________________________________________________________________________________________