Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.   Relativistic semantics make for interesting circular discussions

    One version of the 4-D tesseract is that it projects a shadow onto our 3-D world that looks like the object that
    relativists illustrate on their pages.

    “ Now let us take our three-dimensional cube and carry it, at right angles to itself,
       through a fourth physical dimension: not left-right, not forward-back, not up-down,
       but simultaneously at right angles to all those directions. I cannot show you what
       direction that is, but I can imagine it to exist. In such a case, we would have generated
       a four-dimensional hypercube, also called a tesseract. I cannot show you a tesseract,
       because we are trapped in three dimensions. But what I can show you is the shadow
       in three dimensions of a tesseract. It resembles two nested cubes, all the vertices
       connected by lines. But for a real tesseract, in four dimensions, all the lines would be
       of equal length and all the angles would be right angles.” (p. 264)  [1]

    “ light on a four-dimensional object would cast a three-dimensional shadow… if a
       four-dimensional cube were lit "from above", its shadow would be that of a three-
       dimensional cube within another three-dimensional cube.”   [2]

    “ What is a four dimensional shadow? When you hold a three-dimensional object over
       a flat surface of a table you can see the two-dimensional shadow of that object on the
       table… When you hold the ‘Geometrical Hypercube’ or look at it you are seeing the
       world’s most unique three-dimensional shadow”  [3]

    “ The figure on the left is a projection of the tesseract in three-space”  [4]

    Another version has it that the 3-D shadow itself is the genuine tesseract:

    “ a tesseract is in principle obtained by combining two cubes”   [5]

    “ The tesseract (Figure 6b) gives us what this author believes is the best avenue to
       visualizing 4-D data. The eight bounding cubes can be identified: the large outer cube,
       the smaller inner cube, and the six trapezoids that connect them. The relationships
       between the cubes are visible as well. Each is surrounded by six others, and shares a
       square face with each.”  [6]

    This again confirms that relativists are not talking about an abstract concept. They are attempting to persuade
    you that they are referring to a geometric figure. As far as we know, only physical objects have the ability to
    cast shadows. If you disagree, try shedding light on love and see if you get a shadow.

    So, which is it? Will the real tesseract please stand up? Is the nested set of cubes relativists draw the 4-D
    object or merely the shadow this object would cast in our 3-D world?

    One fellow seems to have zeroed in on this problem and pointed it out:

    “ There is some confusion in terms with respect to the labelling of four-dimensional
       phenomena. The confusion centers around the four-dimensional analog of the cube.
       There are basically two camps. The first camp uses the hyper- prefix for only the
       fourth dimension, and the word ‘tesseract’ to refer to one of two things - either the
       four-dimensional hypercube folded out into three-dimensional space, or to the
       cube-inside-a-cube visualization of the four-dimensional hypercube. The second
       camp uses the hyper- prefix to refer to any dimension above the third (and sometimes
       to refer to any dimension), and ‘tesseract’ to refer to a four-dimensional hypercube.”  [7]

    No. It is not a confusion. It is called not knowing the scientific method. In Science, we must define and resolve
    the definitions and the exhibits of the case before we can decide on the theory or before engaging in eternal
    discussions. We can't understand a theory unless we first visualize the objects and understand the
    definitions. This writer zeroed in on a serious shortcoming he finds in the literature, but glosses over it as if
    this were a trivial matter. He just casually points out that people are using the word tesseract inconsistently
    and then proceeds as if nothing.

    Unfortunately few have caught on. Mathematical physicists are notoriously slow in understanding anything
    that shows contradictions in their theories. Nevertheless, in relativity it is best to leave things as ambiguous
    as possible so that anyone can interpret anything they want according to their biases and predispositions.
    The worldly wisdom that has come out of the Einstein and his ridiculous relativity legacy is and has been that
    ‘everything is relative,’ meaning that it’s just your opinion. This philosophy is popular because it means that
    people can safely continue with their private religions. The greatest intelligence of all times says so! This
    explains Einstein's popularity and why his relativity theory has been so successful. In relativity, you just can't
    go wrong.

    So? Is the hypercube or tesseract (or whatever the idiots of Mathematics want to call it) a 3-D shadow or a 4-D
    object? Is the nested set of cubes the 4-D object or the shadow this object would cast in our 3-D world?

    Of course, if the tesseract is both a 4-D object and a 3-D shadow, it will be difficult for someone to challenge
    such a monster. How can you falsify an irrational theory? How can you run an experiment if you cannot even
    visualize the object at the center of the experiment (i.e., the 4-D hypercube)? How can you even design your
    experiment?  All experiments and theories of relativity are worthless if the proponents cannot even imagine
    what they are talking about. How do they intend to run an experiment or certify the conclusions if they cannot
    even agree on the objects at the center of the inquiry? Relativity is an un-falsifiable theory because no one
    has yet got the story straight. The tesseract is another example of how the mathematicians give lip service to
    definitions and then proceed like bumbling fools.
Relativists invented
a 3-D shadow

    ________________________________________________________________________________________



    Last modified 01/02/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008

    3-D Bill casting his long 3-D shadow

    Relativists may attempt to redirect the argument and say that there is no reason they shouldn’t be able to
    build a 3-D shadow with superimposed lights or holography. After all, the umbra  and penumbra  seem to be
    two shadows that we can distinguish on the wall.

    Should we conclude, then, that there are English-speaking rodents in real life because we can caricature a
    mouse and turn Mickey into a cartoon? The shadow of a lonely object should not require multiple lights, but
    this collage nevertheless has to do with manipulation of electromagnetic waves and not with an authentic
    object. The experiment would not prove that an object called a hypercube exists. The juror can never verify
    that a genuine tesseract would cast such a shadow or that a 4-D object would cast a tesseract-like shadow
    onto our 3-D world. The allegation would further leave unanswered substantial issues such as whether a 4-D
    hypercube has an axis running at 90º to length, width, and height, or whether there is any point on a tesseract
    whence I cannot trace a straight line to me. Is a hologram perchance equivalent to a solid?

    Again, relativists have swallowed a whopping Emperor's Clothes tale! It is the 'star' mentality of Hollywood
    Physics that has left the gullible idiots begging for Einstein's autograph. People are fascinated by big names
    and blindly follow authority.

The 4-D hypercube casting its 3-D shadow

    2.   One 'test' for a physical object is that it must cast a shadow

    But semantics aside, a shadow would seem to be the minimum test required of such an object. If we can
    project a sphere onto a 2-D surface, there should be no reason why we can't project the 4-D hypersphere
    onto a 3-D screen or box. Indeed, a shadow would seem to be the minimum test required of such an object. If
    we can project a sphere onto a 2-D surface, there should be no reason why we can't project the 4-D
    hypersphere onto a 3-D screen or box.

    The trouble with the hypercube's shadow, however, is that we can see its internal structure. Our experience
    with shadows, on the other hand, is that they come in single, 2-D flavors and without the fine detail of the
    object projecting it (Fig. 1). Therefore, experiment fails to confirm this popular relativistic claim. Please list this
    as another ‘prediction’ of General Relativity that turned out to be false. I like to keep count because relativists
    typically have extremely short attention spans and memories. They ignorantly parrot what they heard from a
    self-proclaimed guru of relativity: that GR has been confirmed hundreds of times and never been falsified.
Uncle Steve's lost it again!  
And we ran out of schizo pills
this morning! What a bummer!
I see the 4D spirit
of the Virgin of
the Tesseract.
But are you
sure, man?

Fig. 1   The shadow never lies:  A shadow within a shadow
Relativists claim that the tesseract is a shadow of a hypothetical 4-D object. Clearly they are treating
this unidentified 4-D object as a geometric figure and not as an abstract concept comparable to love
or justice. However, we know of no shadow that is 3-D (i.e., an object), and the idiot who thinks of a
hologram should study the definition of object some more. Relativists perennially go back and forth
between objects and concepts to push their theories through. That's why it's important to define
these two words before engaging in circular discussion with them.


    Pages in this module: