Analogies cannot
help you
see
space-time
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    Having read the foregoing 'analogies', it should have become clear to you that none of them is
    rationally conceived or helps you visualize a four-dimensional object. Indeed, we should not need
    analogies to see a physical object. An analogy may help you understand something. It cannot help
    you visualize a physical object. To see an object you should need only your eyes. If, as the
    mathematicians allege, the Universe has a large-scale ‘structure,’  the prosecutor of relativity should
    simply imagine space-time from a bird’s-eye perspective and construct a mockup for the jury.

    So, now let’s return to the question we set out to answer. Is it unreasonable to demand a sculpture of
    space-time? Can relativists claim that the Universe consists of three physical dimensions (length,
    width, and height) and the temporal ‘dimension’ of time, yet be unable to imagine such a monster?

    Let me make one thing perfectly clear and state it as blunt as I can, Dr. Einstein, if you can hear me in
    that past you say is simultaneous with my present. Illustrating the structure of space-time is not
    merely a curiosity that may after all be worthwhile pursuing. An illustration is the only experiment to
    ‘test’ shape! Any shape! The first law of Physics regarding structure and shape is that, if the factory
    can't manufacture it, you execute the design engineers. Every one of them! And the first rule of
    scientific evidence is that a jury doesn't even begin to deliberate until the plaintiff produces the (literal)
    corpus delicti, the physical bodies. If, as relativists allege, science requires that a hypothesis be
    testable and falsifiable, the conspicuous inability to imagine, let alone illustrate space-time in effect
    self-falsifies GR. How are we going to carry out an experiment in the lab with space-time if we cannot
    even imagine this object?

    So far, the tailors have produced analogies, equations, and bills. Where are the emperor’s robes?
    Where are the structures necessary to do Physics? Where is Einstein’s unimaginable space-time?
    Where are Bohr’s vanishing point particles with which he constructs his atoms and relativists their
    curved space? Where are Hawking’s dimensionless singularities that allegedly form the centers of
    black holes? Physics is first and foremost a discipline that deals with things. Without objects, we have
    no Physics! Math, in contrast, is an irrelevant artificial sidekick that studies that part of grammar
    known as adverbs. Mathematics cannot serve as the basis of structure because the noun of necessity
    precedes the verb like a verb of necessity precedes an adverb. Relativists have yet to zero-in on the
    nature of the Universe because since the dawn of civilization not a single prosecutor has used the
    chalk to draw that first, thick line between a noun and a verb. Before relativists can claim that space-
    time is or isn’t an object they must first define the word object. And before they can fall back on
    analogies, they must begin by defining the word motion. If our discussion is to be consistent, we must
    begin by getting the ground rules (i.e., the scientific method) straight.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 02/11/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
The reason I can’t see space-time
is that I lost my faithful guide dog,
Hawk Eyes. Will you be so kind as
to donate a few bucks so that I can
find him again?