Adapted for the Internet from:Why God Doesn't Exist
 What is aphysical interpretation?

1.0   What is a physical interpretation?

Many relativists routinely illustrate Einstein’s theory in books and websites, [1] [2]  and laymen visualize the
drawings and motion pictures and come to an understanding of relativity. However, in higher circles where
mathematicians discuss equations and functions, popularizations are treated with contempt. They are
viewed as cheap attempts to trivialize the hard work of generations of mathematicians. The aloof elites
would prefer to keep GR as a purely mathematical exercise. If you ‘really’ want to learn relativity and what
Einstein said, you must go to college and study math. Otherwise, you will only get the ‘rabble’ version.

Let’s make sure that we place this argument in its proper context. A mathematician who makes such an
argument is more stupid, ignorant, and arrogant than he realizes. Since inception GR has been heralded as
a theory that offers a physical interpretation for gravity. [3] According to relativity, events take place in a
theater described as a canvas or fabric known as space-time. [4]  Einstein's equations lead the mainstream
to infer that objects 'weigh down' the rubber sheet of space-time, which in turn induces objects to move. [5]
[6]  Relativity proposes that a gradient of the gravitational potential exists between Sun and Earth not
because a force acts linearly to attract these two objects as in Classical Mechanics, but because the Sun
generates a deep well around which our planet orbits. [7]  The theory boasts, in essence, that gravity is a
geometric property of space-time, a fact which in turn reaffirms GR's claim to provide a 'physical
interpretation' to gravity. Therefore, relativists have no justification to avoid an illustration except to protect
their religion at all costs.

Since a mathematical physicist cannot point to a single object he uses in a dissertation, the mathematicians
of the world have developed a peculiar idea of what a ‘physical interpretation’ is supposed to be. In
retrospect, it was predictable that they would look for ways to change the rules when their explanations
didn’t match the equations. For example, when Bohr and his cronies failed to come up with the correct
architecture of light, they looked for ways to explain their waste of millions of dollars in research to the
world. They could not show a photograph of a wave-packet or point to a sculpture of the photon, so they
concocted an irrational explanation to cover up for their incompetence:

“ There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is
wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what
we can say about nature.” [8]

“ ‘evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended
within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the
totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects.’ This inter-
pretation of the meaning of quantum physics, which implied an altered view of the meaning
of physical explanation, gradually came to be accepted by the majority of physicists.” [9]

What the mathematicians ended up doing is re-interpreting the term ‘physical interpretation’ to account for
their failure to give a physical interpretation. Thus, a straight forward question such as ‘What is a photon?’
receives an incongruous answer today. “Go run an experiment and in retrospect you will know whether
you were dealing with a particle or a wave.”

“ different measurements made on a system reveal it to have either particle-like or wave-like
properties”  [10]

To minimize the impact of such ludicrous replies and to continue to enjoy a certain degree of respect from
the public, the mathematicians routinely mine the field with fine print and disclaimers:

“ anyone who thinks they can talk about quantum theory without feeling dizzy hasn’t yet
understood the first thing about it.” [11]

We cannot hope to know everything. Man is not intelligent enough. Anyone who says he knows something
is just arrogant. The jurors nod in agreement… we are mortals… we are imperfect… only God knows for
sure… but meanwhile the mathematician got away with an irrational explanation.

Unfortunately for these swindlers, their alibis don’t cut it in science. The mathematicians can re-interpret
and apologize all they want, but in the end they have to produce the goose that lays the golden eggs. They
are saying that because QM is outrageously at odds with the entire world’s intuition, we must accept it on
the authority of the mathematicians and reject common sense. Again, Quantum Mechanics is merely a
quantitative description of an observation. Science has to do with explanations. A description is not
science. You look at a particle and you can describe it. If you don't know whether it's a particle, you can't
explain what happened. Nevertheless, if the assumption that particles underlie everything in nature is
wrong, then even the mathematical description is absolutely worthless. What matters is the qualitative,
physical interpretation. Only then do we have understanding. The proponent absolutely needs to determine
whether light is a particle, a wave, or something else before he gives his presentation so that the jurors can
follow the plot and understand his theory.

So let’s begin by resolving what a ‘physical interpretation’ is NOT. If Bohr cannot ‘comprehend’ his photon
within a still image or make a movie of it, then Bohr does not yet have a physical interpretation for light. And
likewise, if Einstein cannot illustrate his space-time canvas and make a movie of the Earth, the Moon, and
Mercury rolling around a well, he does not yet have a physical interpretation for gravity. By physical
interpretation I mean that the prosecutor can take a photograph of the object in question, or make a film of
a moving object, or make a sculpture of the system, or simulate it in a computer and exhibit it in court. The
juror can thus visualize that each scene or frame of this movie consists of a still image of the Sun and a
stretched piece of cosmic canvas. Only then can the juror have no excuse not to understand the theory.
This compels the mathematician to treat space unambiguously as a physical object rather than insinuate it
and leave it to the interpretation of each juror. A physical interpretation is a movie that the jurors visualize
and not an abstraction that they are expected to understand. Objects we see with our eyes. Concepts we
understand with our minds. What will the relativity director put on the big screen if all the ‘things’ in motion
are ‘mathematical objects’? What will we watch when he transfers ‘energy’, increases ‘mass’, dilates ‘time’,
moves ‘point particle’, or stretches ‘length’?

Here I will investigate only the physical interpretations that relativity boasts about. If we are to debunk GR,
it is the illustrations and physical interpretations that we must attack and not the equations. GR became an
overnight sensation because it offered a radically different physical interpretation for gravity than Classical
Mechanics. Relativity's version relies on the wishful thinking that space is a physical object. If space is not
an object, relativity is worthless poppycock! None of it survives! Equations are worthless if they are
founded on the wrong hypotheses. Relativity fails logically and conceptually. We cannot even entertain
the theory until we are through with the hypothesis. And the problem here, no doubt, is the relativistic
notion of space. The mathematicians had to convert space into a physical object in order to peddle their
physical interpretation.

If relativists wish to deny that these visualizations in any way reflect their mathematical theories, they are in
effect conceding that they have no physical interpretation for their theory. They are maneuvering on the
battlefield to shield their religion from a ‘whupping.’ So what is the purpose of the mathematicians’ theories
and work if they cannot relate them to the actual physical world? What is the relation of the abstract theory
to Physics? Are the equations and formulas and functions just excuses for a few bohemians to small-talk in
circles at the pub? There is only one way for relativists to show that their idiotic mathematical theories have
anything to do with Physics and with reality and that is to show us a movie. The first thing they need to put
on the screen is a picture of space. All by itself! If the director cannot put space on that first frame, he
certainly cannot make a movie of Mercury rolling around space or a photon sliding down curved space.

 God works in mysterious ways, Bill!
 I can describe the scene, Newt, but I don't understand it. Can you explain it to me?

________________________________________________________________________________________