05Sphere2-D

Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

1.0

The ridiculous 2-D sphere of Mathematical Physics

he mathematicians

like to

argue that a sphere is not a 3-D object but a single,

wrapped-around 2-D

surface.

Hence, a sphere is

really a 2-D analogy of a 3-D

Universe whereas a 3-D surface would be an

analogy of a 4-

Universe.

You what?

Wright explains in a little more detail for those who fail to follow this irrational ‘logic:’

“ remember that the balloon analogy is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D situation that is

supposed to help

you think about a curved 3-D space, but it does not mean that

there is really a 4-D space that the

Universe is expanding into.

[

]

…But the balloon

analogy is a 2-dimensional model, and the center of

the balloon and the space

around are not part of the 2-dimensional Universe. In our 3-dimensional

Universe,

these points could only be reached by traveling in a 4th spatial dimension (not

the

time

dimension of 4-D spacetime), but there is no evidence that this dimension

exists.”

[

]

“ The problem with the balloon analogy is that it's a two-dimensional analogy for a

three-dimensional

situation. The way you're supposed to think about the balloon

analogy is that everything which

happens in two dimensions on the balloon's

surface actually happens in three dimensions in the

universe. For example, the

balloon's surface ‘stretches’ proportionally in TWO directions as the

balloon gets

blown up, but our universe stretches proportionally in THREE directions. The third

dimension in the balloon analogy (i.e. the direction which is perpendicular to the

balloon's surface

and which allows us to see the balloon's curvature) is the

equiva

lent of the FOURTH dimension in

our universe.”

[

]

Sounds complicated?

Not really! The correct term is inconsistent, specifically, the inconsistent use of the

word

dimension

. From

physical

perspective, Wright and Rothstein are describing a

circle and not a sphere. Allow me to explain.

When relativists allege

that a sphere is

2-D, they have stealthily switched to the

mathematical

notion of

dimension again.

They are no longer

talking about the length, width, and height of a static geometric

figure.

They are now talking about the number of numbers

(coordinates) needed in

relativity to locate a

point on

the

surface of a sphere. An additional ‘dimension’,

which they call

time

, is necessary to

conceptualize the

expansion of a balloon.

Hence, two spatial dimensions (of the

surface

of the

sphere

meaning coordinates

needed to locate a point) plus one temporal

dimension

rounds out the relativistic

version

of a 3-D object.

Had

we started our experiment with a 3-D surface – meaning

that the initial object

requires

three numbers

specify a point on its ‘surface’ – the

inflating entity would have resulted in a 4-D

object.

In other words, according to

the idiots of

relativity, the problem is not visualizing a 3-D surface (i.

e., a 3-D

object)

expanding

through 1-D time. The problem is visualizing a 3-D

surface to begin with! Since no one

can

even imagine a surface in which

a point can

be specified with 3

spatial

coordinates

, we limited mortals

have

no choice but to

settle for an analogy. Einstein

realized this back in 1921:

“ it is probable that our three-dimensional space is also approximately

spherical…

Now this is the

place where the reader's imagination boggles. ‘Nobody

can imagine

this thing,'’ he cries indignantly.

‘It can be said, but cannot be thought. I

can repre

sent to myself a spherical surface well enough, but

nothing analogous to it

in three

dimensions.’…We must try to surmount this barrier in the mind, and

the

patient

reader will see that it is by no means a particularly difficult task. For this

purpose

we will

first give our attention once more to the geometry of two-

dimensional

spherical surfaces.”

[

]

[

…and this is where the master takes you on a

trip to Flatland!

]

“ Whereas a 2-sphere is a smooth 2-dimensional surface, a 3-sphere is an object

with three

dimensions”

[

]

[

If a 3-sphere is an object, why don’t you draw it on your website?

An object is that

which has shape.

]

Now you understand why relativists must resort to

analogies

Of course, the underhanded trick of this relativistic analogy is to regard the sphere

both

a 2-D and a 3-

object

simultaneously:

“ Circle represents three-dimensional sphere.” (Fig. 7.11, p. 325)

[

]

Note that t

his 2-D version invokes mathematical

dimensions

(the number of coordinates

needed to locate a

point

on the

surface of the sphere). It

makes the most

of the fact

that in Mathematics you need

two

number

lines

locate a point on a

circle

(plane) as

well as on the

surface

of a sphere (solid). The 3-D version treats

the

sphere strictly

as a solid (length,

width, and height). Now factor in time (the expansion of the 2-D

‘surface’

of the sphere). The 2-D mathematical version

now

simulates

the 3-D solid.

But what if it took 3

spatial

coordinates to locate a point on the surface of the original

object

instead of 2? In other words, what if

there

was a circle (i.e., a plane) that

required you to use 3 spatial coordinates to locate

a point on it? Of

course, this

monster is surrealistic and unimaginable. It is not unimaginable because of our

limited

capabilities as

humans. It is unimaginable because the idiot of relativity is

retroactively amending several

strategic

definitions to make his point: coordinate,

dimension, number line, figure, circle, plane, surface,

solid, and

sphere.

In relativity, a
solid may be 2-D

So let’s explore whether this mumble-jumble dimensional poppycock of our mathematicians holds its

ground

Let's

replace

the sphere with a cube. A cube simplifies the discussion because the idiots of

relativity get

hopelessly confused with spheres.

In the ludicrous world of Mathematical Physics a sphere

may have

anywhere

from one to four dimensions

depending on

whether you talk to

a geometer, a

topologist, or a

mathematician.

The

inconsistent

notions and definitions

that the mathematical

physicists

have developed

muddle the discussion and allow the

to parry all

attacks. Using a cube does not change

the

argument I will

present here and won’t confuse the nitwits

because, fortunately, here is one

instance

where they

all

agree.

Relativists still regard a cube to be a

physical

3-D object

(i.e., has length, width, and

height).

Now if a 3-D cube expands 'through' time, will we end up with a 4-D object or with a

bigger 3-D cube? How

many coordinates,

dimensions, or vectors does it take a

room full of relativists to locate a point on the

entire

surface of a cube anyway? Don’

t we

need 3 numbers to locate a point on a cube? In what way is

the surface

of a

cube

dimensionally

different from that of a sphere?

I won’t vouch for Mathematics,

but in

Physics,

whether a point sits on a sphere or on a cube, it is always crossed by

three

dimensions (length,

width, and

height) and coordinates (longitude, latitude,

and altitude). If you want to add time, go ahead.

will in no way

change the shape of

a sphere or of a cube, because if it does, by definition we are no longer

talking about

spheres or cubes.

If t

he inclusion of time

does

not prevent a relativist from

illustrating his

alleged

unimaginable cube

, why

would time prevent visualization of space-time? Isn't space-time just an

expanding

sphere? Shouldn't there simply be a

sphere in every frame of the movie?

You might suspect by now that I am creating a strawman in order to knock relativity

down easily. Surely a

relativist would

not be such a fool as to confuse a larger cube

with a 4-D hypersphere or with space-time.

Let’s see if Heidmann can put your concerns at rest:

“ In relativity theory there are four dimensions…three of space and one of time, but

it is

impossible

for our human senses fully to visualize what this means. Only

through

mathematics can we get

down to a rigorous treatment.”

[

]

[

What prevents Heidmann from visualizing a larger cube or a cube at different

times?

I invite those

relativists who think like Heidmann to look at the figures

here

!!!!!!!

They will

see with their own eyes the ‘4-D’

space-time (three spatial dimensions and

one

structurally irrelevant temporal ‘dimension’) that has eluded

them all these

years. No

math, no analogies, no bull!

]

The reason that the mathematicians can’t figure out what is going on is due, again,

to their inconsistent

use of

the word

dimension

. All mathematicians alive today

confuse dimensions with coordinates and both

of them

with number lines.

When a

relativist alleges that it takes two numbers or dimensions or

coordinates to locate a

point on the surface of a

sphere, he is really talking about number lines known as

parallels and meridians.

The

re are no

dimensions, coordinates,

vectors

Mathematics

. Mathematics

has no use for qualitative

concepts such as width, or latitude, or breadth.

2.0

Substituting

height

with

time

o complicate matters, the birdbrains summarily and unjustifiably remove the

coordinate

called

altitude

(or, if

you prefer,

the

dimension

known as

height

, or the number line known as

radius

) – the

one that

extends from

the center of the ball to

its

surface and which rational human

beings call the radius:

“ The distance from the center to the points on the sphere is called the radius of the

sphere.”

[

]

“ The other two spatial dimensions are ignored or, sometimes, one of them is

indi

cated by

perspective. (These are called space-time diagrams”

[

]

“ One just politely ignores the y and z co-ordinates, 4-dimensional paper and

black

boards being in

short supply at most universities.”

[

]

[

Then, the mathematicians also ask you to accept this surrealistic scenario in lieu of

intuition. They

call it ‘science’

]

“

To be able to represent conditions graphically we suppress one space-co-ordinate,

assuming

space to be only two dimensional, a Euclidean plane.” (p. 150)

[

]

[

So what does Weyl replace his ‘space-co-ordinate’ with? Why of course! With the

‘dimension’ of

time…

]

“ Every world-displacement x has a definite duration t(x) = t (this takes the place of

‘height’ in our

geometrical argument)” (p. 158-159)

[

]

[

Now you know why Herr Hermann is heralded as a genius!

]

In other words, the mathematicians flatten the sphere into a circle, but continue

calling it a sphere.

" In full three-dimensional space this would be a sphere moving outwards at speed c

-- the spherical wave-front of the light -- but here we are suppressing the spatial

direction y, so we just get a circle" (p. 194)

[

]

In this

way

the

mathematicians

get

the best of both worlds, the dualities the

idiots perpetually thrive on.

They

have a

2-D plane

(circle) and a 3-D solid (sphere)

condensed into one. They point to a sphere and

ask you to

make believe

that

it only

has two dimensions. This is necessary, they say, because they need

the spot to

make room for

the axis of time.

The lunatics are effectively substituting the static

line radius

(measured in

meters) with a

dynamic concept measured in

seconds.

They are replacing a photograph

with a movie.

Actually, the mathematicians are not talking about coordinates or dimensions, but

about

number lines

known

as parallels

and meridians. The morons have squashed

the globe and are now inadvertently

dealing with a

Mercator Projection

. The

discussions with relativists routinely go like this, back and forth

between physical

(length, width, and height) and

‘mathematical’ (parallels, meridians, time)

dimensions. It

is with parallels,

meridians, and time that the idiots of relativity

‘construct’ their 3-D ‘mathematical objects.’

Of course, it is not

surprising therefore

that, after all is said and done, the

mathematicians can’t

understand this unknowable

universe in which we live.

Only God seems to know the answers.

Fig. 1

The idiots of Mathematics
say that a sphere is a
two-dimensional geometric
figure. In this subtle manner,
they get to treat this object
both as a sphere and as a
circle. Of course, if a sphere
can be 2-D as well as 3-D, we
can see how useful this
'geometric figure' can be to
the prosecution.