| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
| Relativists say that space is both finite AND infinite |
| The Universe is so huge -- such an enormous ball -- that it is infinite. There is nothing outside of it. |
- This module: After 3000 years, the idiots of Mathematics cannot tell you what space is
Pages in this module:
1. In Mathematical Physics, space is a physical object
2. This page: Relativists say that space is both finite AND infinite
- 1.0 Space is infinite Part I
Although, as I just argued, the mathematical physicists describe and imagine space as a physical object (i.e., finite), they
would also like for you to think of space as an infinite physical object. In this way they can preserve properties of both and
answer any and all questions. The startling reasoning for infinity goes something like this: space is so big that it doesn't even
have a medium contouring it:
- " There is no ‘outside’ of the pea [instanton], no ‘before’ the pea." (p. 46) [1]
" There is genuinely nothing – not even space – beyond the 'edge' of the universe."
(p. 557) [2]
" We must not regard our spherical space as expanding into an existing space. The
closed spherical space is the entire Universe and what is happening is the expansion
of space itself." (p. 93) [3]
" if the universe is infinitely big, then the answer is simply that it isn’t expanding into
anything; instead, what is happening is that every region of the universe, every
distance between every pair of galaxies, is being ‘stretched’, but the overall size of
the universe was infinitely big to begin with and continues to remain infinitely big
as time goes on, so the universe’s size doesn't change, and therefore it doesn’t
expand into anything. If, on the other hand, the universe has a finite size, then it
may be legitimate to claim that there is something ‘outside of the universe’ that the
universe is expanding into. However, because we are, by definition, stuck within
the space that makes up our universe and have no way to observe anything outside
of it, this ceases to be a question that can be answered scientifically. So the answer
in that case is that we really don't know what, if anything, the universe is expanding
into." [4]
- What does size (a comparison between two objects) have to do with the qualitative issue of whether there is something
contouring and giving shape to a geometric figure? How can anyone manage to conceive the shape of a pea or of a finite
universe without specifying the medium that serves to contour the surface of this alleged physical object? Can we even
imagine a cube unless there is a medium that encompasses it?
It would seem that if the prosecutor of a theory alleges that space looks like a sphere and that this sphere is expanding, he
is alluding to a geometric figure, to a physical object. This does not necessarily mean that space is really a sphere. It just
means that the prosecutor wants you to assume that space is a sphere in order to understand his theory. The prosecutor
then has no reason not to be able to point to a mockup or to a sketch of a sphere. He has no excuse to circumvent the
exhibits phase of his presentation. He is required to illustrate the sphere in order for every juror to visualize the same thing.
The only way we can use the word object consistently (i.e., scientifically) is if we use it as a category of words that represent
shapes. Therefore, there is a single question we need to answer and that is whether space has shape. Then we'll know for
sure whether space belongs to the category we know as 'objects' or to something else.
There is also a single way for an observer to visualize shape: with a medium serving as a backdrop. We cannot even
imagine a sphere without an entity in its background. From an observer's perspective, the concept known as object
invokes two 'things': the object itself and whatever surrounds and gives shape to it. In Science, there is no such thing
as an infinite object because the term results in an oxymoron. The word object is a synonym of finite. An infinite object
is in effect an 'infinite finite.'
The mathematicians who propose that space is a sphere which lacks a surface, are trying to get away with a whopper.
They want space to be an object so that they can show you how space generates gravity and interacts with stars and
planets within it. Yet they also want you to believe that there is nothing outside of it so they can elude the crucial
question of whether it is truly an object. If they had to answer what was outside of space, they would never be able to
end their circular reasoning. Therefore, the mathematicians found it more convenient to delegate these matters to
philosophers claiming that whether there is something contouring space is outside of experimental capabilities
(i.e., outside of Science).
2.0 You can't ask that question!
In fact, it gets much worse. The mathematicians invented a simple argument that now everyone at the Math Asylum
repeats like a zombie. The scholars decided that it is unscientific for you to ask the question in the first place:
- " Questions such as 'What is beyond the edge of the universe?' or 'What is the
universe expanding into?' Are as meaningless as asking 'What is north of the
north pole?' " (p. 555) [5]
[This mathematician doesn't have the gray matter to realize that these questions
are not even remotely similar. Beyond the edge of the Earth we have air, and
beyond this enveloping gas we have space. Now answer the question instead of
looking for ways to elude it. What is beyond the edge of space if as you say space
has an edge?]
" in general relativity it became meaningless to talk about space and time outside the
limits of the universe." [6]
[I bet! Perhaps in relativity it is meaningless. This is the type of question we ask in Science.]
" this ceases to be a question that can be answered scientifically." [7]
[Oooooh, we can answer the question scientifically! It is irrational to say that there is
nothing enclosing a sphere. See how easy it is in Science?]
" the Universe is not expanding into anything that we can see, and this is not a
profitable thing to think about" [8]
[This is not something we prove with an experiment. This is a conceptual issue.]
" such questions as 'is the universe finite or infinite' or 'what caused the universe' are
false and cannot be answered because the point of view from which such questions
arise does not really exist and is unattainable. It presumes that consciousness can
take up a position outside existence as such in order to observe it - and that the
totality of existence can be an object to it " [9]
[The questions are false? In Science, it is the answers the mathematicians give which
are false. What do the lunatics at the asylum drink anyways?]
" the balloon can be seen by an external observer to be expanding 'into' the third
dimension (in the radial direction), but this is not a feature of metric expansion…
This third dimension is not mathematically necessary for two-dimensional metric
expansion to occur... This is why the question 'what is the universe expanding into?'
is poorly phrased. Metric expansion does not have to proceed 'into' anything. The
universe that we inhabit does expand and distances get larger, but that does not
mean that there is a larger space into which it is expanding... the fact of expansion
does not theoretically require such a dimension to exist" [10]
[Perhaps a third dimensions is unnecessary in the idiotic religion of Mathematical
Physics. In Science, we absolutely need a background to visualize an object.
Certainly, we can do without Math to settle this one. Expansion is a physical
phenomenon. We absolutely need a background if we are going to visualize an
inflating balloon. Show me a movie of your stupid expanding universe without a
backdrop and you win the bet!]
What a bummer! I guess I'm out of luck. Just the question that destroys the physical interpretations of Mathematical
Physics and it turns out that I am not allowed to ask it! To make my position even more precarious, by shear coincidence,
it also happens to be unscientific!
What the mathematicians of the world have done is put their God outside your reach so that you can't trash Him. The
mathematicians are saying that their Math God is an anthropomorphic being and exists, but that, unfortunately, He
doesn't have a shape you can recognize. There is nothing outside of God's skin that contours him or that provides a
contrast. Now God waves His magic wand and creates the Universe, space included, around Himself. So what is the
stuff that isolates the Universe from God (Fig. 1)? Certainly, it can't be space because space is part of the Universe God
just finished making. If the space within the Universe stops at the space that contours God, how are these two 'spaces'
different?
Fig. 1 The transcendental God |
4.0 Space is infinite Part II
The other misconception that relativists pass around is that space (actually space-time) is infinite, not because it is so big,
but because you can run around it forever. In such cases the mathematicians confuse motion for geometric figures and
verbs with nouns. Thus, they end up confusing the adjective infinite with the adverb perpetual.
5.0 What is the shape of nothing?
One of the issues that Christians and mathematical physicists discuss ad nauseam is the origin of the Universe. Relativists
claim that the Universe started on its own out of nothing:
- " At the big bang itself the universe is thought to have had zero size" (p. 117) [11]
- " At some point in the past, the radius was zero" (p. 80) [12]
- Christians, on the other hand, claim that God was the author of Big Bang:
" The problem with saying that the Big Bang is an event without a cause is that it
entails that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing, which seems
metaphysically absurd." [13]
- [You got that right!]
- The mathematicians are saying that there is nothing outside of nothing. That's great! And out of this nothingness,
'something' spontaneously came into being. That's even more amusing! When you begin laughing at them, they get
upset and tell you that it's unfair to ask the question.
Unfortunately, neither the mathematicians nor their detractors in Creationism have ever taken the trouble to define the
word 'nothing.' This makes any statement that invokes this strategic word in their argument meaningless:
- " In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum
state with the lowest possible energy. By definition, it contains no physical
particles." [14]
[Contains no particles, but contains energy. Aha! So what is this 'energy' stuff that
it contains. If the mathematicians are correct, this 'nothing' can be transferred.
Therefore, even under current standards, (i.e., anything that is tangible) this
magical energy stuff qualifies as a physical object!]
" if we are talking about empty space when we talk about 'nothing,' then it actually is
not true that we never observe things come from nothing: the quantum mechanical
uncertainty principle allows for particle-antiparticle pairs to spontaneously appear
out of empty space" [15]
" This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and
time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that ``empty space'' in its physical
relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by
ten functions (the gravitation potentials g), has, I think, finally disposed of the view
that space is physically empty." [16]
" the universe began as a perfect vacuum and all the particles of the material world
were created from the expansion of space. To see how these events might have
happened, we must first understand what quantum mechanics tells us about empty
space... every point is space, all across the universe, is seething with virtual pairs
of particles and antiparticles... virtual particles can materialize and appear as real
particles in the real world... matter can spontaneously appear, then disappear...
Pairs of every conceivable particle and antiparticle are constantly being created
and destroyed at every location across the universe. (pp. 577-579)" [17]
[So the idiots of Mathematics claim that particles sprang from nothing. Then, they tell
you that nothing is made of particles. What a bunch of stupid lamebrains! You don't
need to go to college to realize that the mathematical establishment is full of shit!]
" Now twice zero is also zero... when the universe doubles in size, the positive matter
energy and the negative gravitational energy both double, so the total energy remains
zero." (p. 129) [18]
[Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Should I be cynical or should
I feel pity for the world? This is the appalling state of 'Science' after 3,000 years!]
In the religion of Mathematical Physics, whether they call it vacuum or energy or virtual whatever, they never end up
with nothing. The mathematicians always end up with something -- usually particles -- or with an irrelevant number.
In fact, just to rub it in, the idiots of the establishment not only confess that nothing is something and that the vacuum
is made of particles, but in addition that nothing has the three dimensions of Physics: length, width, and height. The
word nothing has no meaning to a mathematical physicist or to a philosopher because they can't manipulate it. There
is nothing to test or experiment on, nothing to observe when you're dealing with nothing.
Then, of course, it is not surprising when college professors end up arriving at ridiculous conclusions concerning the
properties of space:
- " There are many examples of ways a transparent material like water glass or air can
bend light... The reason that is possible is because light will always take the shortest
route, which is not always a straight line. All you need is a transparent material that
bends light around an object like water moving around a stone." [19]
[Light bends like water flowing around a stone? I think the one who is stoned is the
mathematician who said this!]
- " the spinning [of a black hole] changes the shape of space" [20]
[Whoa is me! A black hole must be spinning near me. I feel the shape of space twisting
and bending all around me.]
" in some cases such as around a spinning black hole, space and time get twisted
together and can no longer be neatly separated." [21]
[Yeah! I know what you mean! I'm starting to get my seconds and meters confused!]
- [
Are these people for real? What planet do they come from?
Mind you, I am not saying that light doesn't reflect, refract, or diffract. The mathematician, instead, explains that a
particle of light slides or rolls along warped space. In the extreme case of the black hole, the mathematicians claim
that this terrifying entity has the authority to tie space into knots. The scholars mold and play around with space like
silly putty before they have settled whether space qualifies as a physical object (i.e., has shape). These claims amount
to nothing more and nothing less than Ptolemaic explanations for phenomena the establishment yet doesn't understand.
6.0 The mathematicians say that space is a bunch of numbers
- In order to accommodate their ever complex, abstract, and ludicrous theories, the idiots of Mathematics had to develop
many different notions of space, one for every purpose. Relativists talk about one-space, two-space, three-space. They
talk about Euclidean space, Hausdorff space, Hilbert space, Riemann space, topological space, vector space, symplectic
space. They talk about inflating space, warped space, and free space. They say that objects occupy space, travel through
space, and reach the boundaries of space. How many spaces are there? What meaning can the strategic word space
have in Science if the idiots of the establishment come up with so many irrelevant and irreconcilable versions. I thought
that there was only one space, you know, that dark one that is up there between the stars and the galaxies! That's the
only space that Science recognizes. The rest is nonsense invented by mathematicians.
The most ridiculous of the mathematical proposals holds that space is a set of numbers:
- " Space and time are now dynamic quantities: when a body moves, or a force acts, it
affects the curvature of space and time" (p. 33) [22]
" Space is one of the few fundamental quantities in physics, meaning that it cannot be
defined via other quantities because there is nothing more fundamental known at
present. Thus, similar to the definition of other fundamental quantities (like time and
mass), space is defined via measurement." [23]
[Space is a quantity? Where did the stupid morons of Mathematics ever get this idiotic
idea? The alleged 'scientists' who regard space to be a quantity should be kicked out
of Science! It is absolutely ridiculous and extremely offensive to say that space, you
know, that dark 'entity' you look at every night and which is sprinkled with stars, is a
quantity!]
- Now that the mathematicians morphed space into a quantity -- something they can relate to -- it can easily be stretched
out like a number line, you know,... like a mathematical dimension:
- " Euclidean n-space, sometimes called Cartesian space or simply n-space, is
the space of all n-tuples of real numbers" [24]
" The everyday type of space familiar to most people is called Euclidean space. In
Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, Euclidean three-space plus time (the 'fourth
dimension') are unified into the so-called Minkowski space. One of the most general
type of mathematical spaces is the topological space." [25]
- Wrong! The everyday type of space familiar to normal human beings is the mysterious dark stuff you see surrounding the
Moon. Analysis of this dark stuff we call space is not a task that concerns the mathematical establishment. This is not a
quantitative undertaking, but a qualitative one. The space of Physics, the one and only space in the Universe, has nothing
to do with Mathematics or with dimensions.
- It is absolutely disheartening to discover that the Physics module at Wolfram doesn't even have an entry for the word
space. Isn't space a topic of Physics? Isn't space, in fact, one of the most important components of the real world? How
can anyone at Wolfram claim to know anything about Physics when they don't define a single important word of Physics
(e.g., object, space, location, motion, dimension, parallel, perpendicular, angle, edge, distance, flat,straight, continuous,
Universe, etc?) For instance, the mathematicians at Wolfram tell you that cosmology is the study of the Universe, but they
don't define what they mean by Universe. What can these people possibly know about Physics if most of the fundamental
words of Physics have been defined at the Math site? What do numbers, equations, functions, and variables have to do
with space?
Relativists would like to place
their beloved God beyond your
reach so that you can't hurt Him.
They want you to believe on the
one hand that space is a finite
entity (i.e., that it has shape and
structure), that you live 'within'
its borders, but that there is no
medium that contours space and
provides shape to it. .
their beloved God beyond your
reach so that you can't hurt Him.
They want you to believe on the
one hand that space is a finite
entity (i.e., that it has shape and
structure), that you live 'within'
its borders, but that there is no
medium that contours space and
provides shape to it. .
3.0 Cross that inexistent boundary at your own risk!
And hopefully God is powerless to escape this unspecified medium in which he is trapped. Imagine, God forbid, that the Old
One had the ability to escape it. He would certainly run into a couple of weird results:
1. God would lose His most precious superpower: shape. God can escape space at the risk
- of surrendering form, ironically the property to which He owes both His objecthood and
His existence. Without shape, God is nothing! I mean, literally!
2. More fundamentally, God would run into trouble attempting to cross that which has no
- boundary in the first place! You can ascribe all the powers you want to God, but He
cannot escape that which has no surface or edge to cross.
- 3. Nevertheless, where would He go? Into another medium? What contains the last bag?
- What contains the 26th dimension of String Theory?
- If an anthropomorphic Creator exists, He is trapped in here with the lot of us. Space is the largest prison never built!
Spaced-out Bill
| 10 beers took him where God dared not go! |
nothing
| I finally see warped light and the edge of space. What joy! |
The God of Relativity
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008