Is space-time
2-D, 3-D, or 4-D?
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.0   The multi-dimensional space-time of relativity

    If relativists ever manage to agree and decide that space-time is a physical object, the next thing they
    need to ask themselves is why they have trouble visualizing it. Why can you see a chair and not
    space-time?

    Relativists answer that space-time is a four-dimensional object and that, unfortunately, us 3-D beings
    are stuck in 3-D space and are limited in our physical perceptions.

    " A classic example of the limitations of our neural wiring is the inability to picture more
       than three dimensions." [4]

    The mathematician asks you to put aside your common sense and intuition and believe that 4-D
    space-time is a physical object on which planets, stars, and photons roll, but you are denied the right
    to demand to see a sculpture of this object. You just have to praise its beauty and accept its existence
    on the authority of the mathematicians.

    This suspicious excuse brings back memories of a story I hear as a child...

    In the 19th Century, Hans Christian Andersen wrote The Emperor’s New Clothes, the story of a
    gullible emperor who hired two swindlers posing as weavers to make the finest of robes for him.  The
    would-be tailors made the emperor and his courtesans believe that only those deserving of their jobs
    could see the suit. Then they went through the motions of weaving and sewing inexistent thread. This
    cunning stratagem worked its way through each of the king’s assistants, who, for fear of hearsay –
    and of losing his job – opted to eulogize an inexistent gown rather than confess the inability to see it.
    The story ends with a stoic emperor parading around the realm in nothing but pride.

    Andersen’s proverbial tale is a perfect analogy for space-time, General Relativity, and Mathematical
    Physics. Like the emperor’s robes, space-time is a myth and, like the hoodwinked king, relativists are
    riding naked around the realm of Science. The funny thing in relativity is that the swindlers ended up
    believing their own fibs.

    We first encounter the weavers of relativity telling the emperor that the Universe looks like an
    expanding balloon. [5]  Indeed, the sphere is the geometry most often used to depict space-time. The
    first messenger the king sends, however, timidly reports back that space-time appears to have the
    shape of a cylinder, or perhaps a saddle…you know…something like a doughnut.  [6]  

    Huh?  

    A little disconcerted, the king sends a second envoy. This fellow comes back and tells His Majesty
    that space-time consists of two nested doughnuts pierced by what appears to be a rolled-up
    newspaper. [7]  He insinuates to his master that this tiny ‘twistor’ version is a subatomic mockup of
    the Universe. [8]

    His Eminence, now completely intrigued and impatient, finally sends in the Royal Astrologer, a man
    with impeccable qualifications. This emissary looks, comes back, and goes into a trance. He tells the
    king that he visualizes infinite mother-child inflationary universes interconnected by wormholes.       
    (p. 625) [9]  The entire scheme, he says, resembles a cross-section of an ant hole.

    At this point the crowd gathered at the palace begins to murmur. Some members of the court
    comment that space-time is like an invisible flowing stream bending around obstacles found in its
    path. [10]  Others whisper that they imagine space-time as a foamy sponge. [11]  There are also those
    in the crowd who visualize space-time as a mystical chain mail, a grand cosmic armor interlinked via
    one-dimensional loops. [12]  Yet others flatly tell his Excellency that Big Bang has the shape of a pea.
    (p. 38) [13]   

    Considering that Mathematics is supposed to be a precise science, it is perplexing that relativists
    have arrived at widely differing physical interpretations of the fundamental hypothesis underlying
    their theory. But what really puts the icing on the cake is that all of these visions are 3-D. They are all  
    2-D representations of 3-D objects. (See, for example, the Physics Web, WMAP, and Wikipedia
    versions of the universe.) GR’s equations, instead, ‘predict’ that space-time is 4-D.

    " Spacetime is usually interpreted as a four-dimensional object with space being
       three-dimensional and time playing the role of the 4th dimension... our universe
       has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time... a space-time
       continuum is mathematically defined as a four-dimensional, smooth, connected
       pseudo-Riemannian manifold" [14]

    " All we know is that our space-time is 4 dimensional to about a few parts per
       hundred billion" [15]

    [Now what sense can this idiotic statement have? Are you 3-D to a certain level
      of accuracy? Do you believe that Dr. Odenwald will tomorrow prove that you
      are 3-D and a half?]

    If this weren't so, some bright relativists say, it would not be possible for humans to exist:

       " We argue that all but the (3 + 1)-dimensional one might correspond to `dead worlds',
           devoid of observers, in which case all such ensemble theories would actually
           predict that we should find ourselves inhabiting a (3 + 1)-dimensional spacetime. " [16]

    If a box is three-dimensional because it faces simultaneously along the mutually-orthogonal
    dimensions of length, width, and height, a 4-D object would have to project a fourth line perpendicular
    to all three (Fig. 1)! Of course, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that such a monster is
    beyond imagination! So again, is space-time 3-D or 4-D? If space-time is unimaginable, why did the
    mathematicians try to illustrate it? In what way will an analogy help us visualize space-time?

Fig. 1

The definition of the word dimension of Physics
versus
the definition of the word dimension of Mathematics
Since the days of Descartes, the idiots of Mathematical Physics have confused number lines for
dimensions. The mathematicians use parallels and meridians and call them coordinates or
dimensions or whatever. To make matters worse, they routinely leave out the 3rd (physical)
dimension, the one they call radius or diameter. They call it height, and replace it with a number
line called time. This is how they arrive at the ridiculous conclusion that a sphere is 2-D. The
sphere later magically morphs into a 4-D geometric figure when the mathematicians attempt to
convince you that you live within a concept called space-time. These misconceptions have only to
do with semantics. The mathematicians are not using their definitions consistently.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 02/01/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
    2-D ST    " Microwave background measurements point to flat, infinite space… Inflation theory
    explains flat space." [1]

    3-D ST    " Einstein made the revolutionary suggestion that gravity is not a force like other forces,
    but is a consequence of the fact that space-time is not flat (p. 29) … Gravity is so strong
    that space is bent round onto itself, making it rather like the surface of the earth." (p. 44) [2]

    4-D ST    " Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing
    the role of the fourth dimension." [3]

    The root of the problem in the instant debate is that relativists use inconsistent versions of the
    strategic word dimension. The dimension of Physics has to do solely with physical objects. The
    dimension of Mathematics has to do solely with concepts. It belongs strictly to ordinary speech. The
    mathematical definition of the word dimension is unscientific because it cannot be used consistently
    in a dissertation. A table is 3-D, but a point on a table may be specified with 1, 2, 3, or as many
    mathematical dimensions you wish to invoke. If you say that temperature is a dimension, the point on
    the chair can now be specified with four dimensions. Does this mean that the chair is now four-
    dimensional?

    To complicate matters, the mathematicians use the word dimension inconsistently throughout their
    presentations. They alternate back and forth between the dimension of Mathematics and the
    dimension of Physics. Whenever a mathematician uses the word dimension, you have absolutely no
    idea what he is talking about.


    2.0   A relativist uses two irreconcilable definitions of the word dimension to make his case for space-
            time

    The inconsistent arguments raised by relativists raises further doubts about their understanding of
    relativity theory in particular and the scientific method in general. There can be only two possibilities:

    a.  According to the Mathematicians, the term ‘4-D’ means that it takes four coordinates or numbers
         to specify the position of a point or event:

    " an object is said to have as many dimensions as there are axes required
       to locate its position in space." [17]   

         Therefore, this mathematical notion of 4-D is unrelated to the physical appearance of space-time
          itself and should not preclude relativists from visualizing space-time (Fig. 1). The fact that
          Hawking needs longitude, latitude, and altitude to specify the location of a basketball within his     
          garage at 2 o’clock in the afternoon does not make either the ball or the garage physically four-
          dimensional.  In other words, relativists have no grounds to use their mathematical
          definition of dimension as an excuse for why they cannot illustrate their 4-D Universe. They are
          alluding to relations, to the location of one point with respect to another. This has nothing to do
          with architecture. According to their definition, a point on a (physical) 3-D object can be specified
          with as many (mathematical) 'dimensions' that you care to invoke.

    " dimensions can also be other physical parameters such as the mass and
       electric charge of an object, or even, in a context where cost is relevant,
       an economic parameter such as its price." [18]

          In relativity, you are allowed to include anything you want as a dimension. You can even
          include temperature or color or the smell of space-time if you wish.

          Of course, the mathematician may attempt to deny this, yet it is the idiots of Mathematics who talk
          about 11 dimensions, 26 dimensions, and infinite dimensions. So what do they mean by this?
          What are all these lines? Do they run perpendicular to each other? If the mathematical morons are
          going to introduce words such as time and mass and energy, what do these words have to do with
          dimensions? Does an idiot of Mathematics become a 4-D being because, in addition to the length,
          width, and height of his body he also moves? A mathematician may want to specify the dimen-
          sions of table with an ordered pair, triplet, quadruplet, or as many as he wants. This will not affect
          the shape of the table. We will continue to say that the table is three-dimensional. So how does the
          'dimension' of time change the shape of space-time? Why does the inclusion of time now make
          space-time unimaginable? A balloon that expands 'through time' is simply a  larger balloon. Why
          do the idiots of relativity say that they cannot imagine this balloon?

Fig. 2   Multi-dimenisonal
space-time
Relativists describe, illustrate,
and explain three different
universes. Of course, it is
difficult to falsify such a theory.
Mmmm.
Which model
should I study for
the test?

    b.  On the other hand, if the mathematicians were referring to physical dimensions –  length, width,
          and height – we simply have to determine whether their universe consists of 3 or 4 spatial
          dimensions.

    •        If 4-D, it is clearly impossible to illustrate space-time, and the question remains
    as to why relativists took the trouble in the first place. Could it be that they don’t
    understand their own theory? Certainly, no analogy or object that the Flatlander
    can draw in 2-D will help his partner visualize the third dimension!

    •        If 3-D, then again relativists again have no choice but to pull out their crayons.
Hey Bill! Eat your heart out!
I got all the questions right
on the relativity test.
100 % correct!
Congratulations, Steve,
you lucky dog!
I didn't get any of 'em right.
I don't understand any of this shit.