| Are you skeptical of the physical interpretations that the mathematical idiots at Cambridge and Harvard give you? If so, read on... |
| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Last modified 02/20/08
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
- They usurp grand titles such as 'physicist' and 'scientist', but do not be misled. The members of the
establishment are just mathematicians. The mathematical physicists have become the priests of the
modern world, listening to your petty confessions about how you think the world works and then
setting you straight, telling you how the Universe 'really' works. Authority no longer emanates from
the Bible. It now flows from variables, equations, and numbers.
However, as it turns out, Mathematics is NOT the language of Physics or of Science! In fact, Math has
absolutely nothing to do with Physics and very little to do with Science. Mathematics is a language
like Mandarin is a language. Would it make any sense to say that Mandarin is the language of Physics?
A mathematician has no more authority to draw conclusions about the physical world from a set of
functions than a medieval priest had of prescribing indulgences pursuant to his particular interpretation
of the Bible. In fact, Mathematics is a language that makes people stupid. By definition, a stupid person
is someone with no common sense, and all relativists, mechanics, and string theorists freely admit that
they have long ago surrendered their collective common sense. A mathematical physicist is an individual
who has placed all his faith in equations at the expense of rationality. He no longer has the ability to tell
fact from fantasy. The layman follows his lead and holds him in high regards merely because the
mathematician is a celebrity.
Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that there is something wrong with the equations and
functions that the mathematicians use to describe physical phenomena. I am saying that they are
irrelevant. You can describe the motion of a ball with a set of symbols... but only if you know first that
the invisible entity is a ball. If what your equation is describing really looks like a spring or a rubber
band, or we are unwittingly describing the signal propagating along a barber's pole, your equation is
meaningless (Fig. 1). The equation that you use to characterize the motion of the end of a rubber band
may be the same one you use to describe the motion of a ball, but the physical interpretation will
necessarily be different. Without a qualitative interpretation, an equation by itself is not science.
2.0 The three pillars of Mathematical Physics
Contemporary Mathematical Physics is comprised of three pillars: General Relativity (GR), Quantum
Mechanics (QM), and String Theory (ST). The establishment regards these disciplines with absolute
reverence, but don't be misled. GR, QM, and ST are actually more like Andersen's proverbial
Emperor's Clothes tale. The mathematician points to an invisible entity and tells you what you are
observing. Suspiciously, the idiot of Mathematics always ends up with his beloved point. An atom is
a particle. An electron is a particle. A photon is a particle. An event is a particle. And a string is made
of particles.
When you insinuate that his interpretation borders on the irrational, the moron goes absolutely
bonkers! He urges you to set aside your common sense and intuition and trust his equations and
calculations. He throws a list of who's who at you to reinforce his claim. All the celebrities of Nobel
and Templeton fame believe in the particle. So who are you to question so much authority?
But I have just shown that you can provide different physical interpretations to an equation. So what
compels you to switch your intellectual allegiance? Why should you trust his interpretation of a physical
phenomenon when it is also based on intuition?
The results are on the table. After centuries of raving lunacy, the mathematicians of this world have
absolutely nothing to show for their abstract theories. We have yet to see a mockup of space-time or
a picture of a single particle of the Standard Model or a sculpture of the 1-D Planck Length theorists
claim the Universe is made of. Not a single mathematician on Earth can tell you WHAT light IS. Not a
single mathematician working at NASA or CERN can tell you how a simple magnet works or WHAT
the invisible lines of force that surround it ARE. Not a single mathematician at Cambridge or at Harvard
can illustrate mass or energy for you. And certainly numbers and equations will not help them in any
of these quests.
Fig. 1 |
| Assume that you see an equation that says that the speed of an invisible entity is so many meters per second: x m/s. Can you say unambiguously what the entity looks like? The lazy mathematicians have never bothered to investigate the architecture of subatomic entities further. They routinely use the point (or the point particle) to model their equations because it is the simplest entity they can imagine and the easiest to use to simulate their equations. It is not surprising, therefore, that they conclude that the entire universe is made of point particles, or as the idiots of relativity call them: events. Unfortunately, the 'useful' point has come at a great price. The morons of Mathematics have sacrificed understanding (i.e., explanation) at the expense of a description. |
The underlying problem is that the mathematicians have never defined the word science unambiguously
and have yet to grasp the nature of the scientific method. The establishment has erroneously concluded
that experimentation and Math are necessary components of the scientific method. A mathematician
models the path of an invisible particle with an equation, runs a test to prove his hunch, and then boasts
that the experiment has proven his theory. [1] Yet, when you go back to check, the infamous particle was
merely an assumption. If the invisible thing at the center of his experiment is not a particle, his alleged
'proof' disintegrates before your very eyes. The mathematicians mistake assumptions for proofs and
confuse hypotheses with theories.
After 2500 years of research, the disciples of Pythagoras and Euclid have nothing to exhibit at their trade
shows, nothing to show during their show-and-tells. The mathematicians are still in the Dark Ages as far
as their understanding of nature is concerned. They have merely modified the language of Plato and
Augustine. The members of the establishment continue to talk about spirits and ghosts and miracles, but
today allude to such phenomena using scientific-sounding names like 'singularity' and 'carriers of force'
and 'uncertainty.' The irony is that the mathematicians believe that the development of technology proves
that the inventions we enjoy today confirm their theories.
The language of Physics and of Science is called visualization. In order for the prosecutor and the juror
to be on the same wavelength, they must both watch the same movie. If the prosecutor is talking about
rocks and the juror imagines trees they cannot possibly be communicating. We don't understand rocks
and trees. We see them with our eyes! There is only one way to guarantee that everyone visualizes the
same thing: the presenter should be able to make a movie of his theory. A theory is an explanation of
how or why something occurred. If the presenter cannot put his ideas on the Big Screen for everyone
to watch (the same thing), he is not doing Science. And in order for the theory to be converted into a
movie, an even more fundamental requirement is form. Without shapes, the prosecutor has nothing to
film and the juror has nothing to watch. The first requirement of science and of the scientific method is
to produce the physical objects. We cannot make a film with abstract concepts! We cannot do science
with the idiotic words of Mathematics: energy, mass, time, force, or field. These are not physical objects.
These words do not represent things that have shape.
Science is not about running experiments or proving theories. Science is about communicating ideas.
Afterwards you can infer whatever you like, run experiments in the lab, and reach your own conclusions.
In order to communicate ideas precisely, the presenter absolutely needs to define his words rigorously.
A precise definition of the words tat make or break a theory is the second requirement of the scientific
method.
Mathematical Physics fails both of these requirements. Not a single mathematician in the world can
make a movie of his presentation. What is he going to put on the screen? A picture of energy? A scene
where mass jumps up and down? And not a single mathematician on Earth defines the words that make
or break his theory rigorously. The contemporary mathematicians:
- • tell you that their crucial words are primitives (i.e., undefinable) (e.g., point, line,
- mass, energy, time)
- • use these terms inconsistently during their talks anyways
• replace concepts with objects (e.g., the center of mass with a dot, space-time
- with a tesseract)
- • move abstract concepts (e.g., transfer energy, accelerate point particles, bend
- • describe interactions between abstractions (e.g., virtual particles, field and
- charge, annihilation of two 0-D particles)
...and then wish you to believe that they are doing Science. The mathematicians of Mathematical Physics
are the first to attempt to give a physical interpretation to their equations. When you call their bluff and
show that the explanation is irrational, relativists defend themselves by saying that you are raising a
philosophical issue and not one that concerns Science (meaning Physics). But it was they who
introduced 'philosophy' (i.e., give a physical interpretation) to the equations in the first place. In other
words, the mathematician wants you to believe that he is authorized to provide a physical interpretation
to a series of variables or to a function because he is backed by Math and celebrities. When you question
his logic, he accuses you of relying on subjective intuition and common sense at the expense of objective
Mathematics. He dismisses your attack as petty philosophy, meaning that it's just your opinion. If this fails
to persuade you, he produces next a list of celebrities from the 'scientific' community who believe in the
same idiocy he does. These people are backed by Nobel Prizes (which their peers gave to them). Look
behind you. Who votes for your version?
This site has the purpose of exposing Mathematical Physics for what it is: an irrational religion. The most
natural place to start the discussion is by telling you a little bit about who these latter-day astrologers and
alchemists are, what they believe in, and what they do. Let's see how much they really know and settle
once and for all whether they have any authority to interpret the physical world for you.
I argue that Mathematics is not only NOT the language of Physics, but that it has absolutely nothing to
do with Physics... Mathematics is a language like Chinese is a language. Would it make sense to say that
Swahili is the language of Physics? The language of Physics is visualization. If a mathematician cannot
make a movie of his theory, he is not doing Science, let alone Physics. Period! He has not explained the
phenomenon. Unfortunately, we have delegated the task of uncovering the nature of our Universe to
idiots that laymen mistake for geniuses. I can find no better word than idiot to qualify an individual who
has a Masters Degree or a PhD and offers irrational and fantastic physical interpretations for natural
phenomena. Anyone who invokes such ridiculous concepts as space-time, Big Bang, black hole,
parallel universe, field, energy, mass, wave-packet, point particle, time travel, tunneling, warped space,
or annihilation to explain a phenomenon of nature should be kicked out of Science and locked up in a
mental institution. The official scientific world is a farce. The establishment has gone completely mad.
The mathematicians have become the priests of the modern world. They 'describe' a phenomenon for
you with variables and urge you to believe their physical interpretations on the authority of their
calculations. Actually their interpretations of the real world have as much to do with their equations as
the Bible with the existence of God, but naive people have gradually willed themselves to believe the
experts. They stand respectfully in awe of the nonsense coming out of the universities and think tanks.
The result is that we have made a 180 turn. We are back to the middle ages as far as understanding of
nature is concerned.
If, like me, you suspect the physical interpretations of the mathematical sages of our world, the following
pages contain material that will provide you with solid arguments in your heads-to-heads with relativists,
mechanics, and string theorists. I have simplified concepts and theories of Mathematical Physics and
illustrated wherever possible to make the site accessible to the average visitor. You don't need to know
Math to realize that relativity is 100% poppycock. A good dose of common sense will do!
| Well guys! Our research of the Old Testament is complete. There is nothing in there about a God particle, a photon, or a Higgs Boson. Let's now start with the New Testament. |
| Hey Joey? Will you lend me your string? I think I just got an idea! |
| You seem to have trouble grasping our abstract, mathematical theories, Bill. Therefore, we are through with words. Perhaps it's time for something a little more pragmatic. We decided that the time has come to demonstrate our theories to you empirically. |
