Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.0   How relativists drag holes around: the movie

    Let’s assume that we evacuate a chamber completely of all its contents? There are now no more atoms
    inside the chamber; just empty space. We can now boast that we have ‘trapped’ a volume of space inside
    our little chamber. We have sliced a chunk of space away from space. This space cube is everywhere in
    the vicinity surrounded by regular matter: the chamber walls, the air surrounding the chamber, us, the
    Earth, etc. (Fig. 1). We now put this chamber on wheels so that we can roll it from location A to location B.
    The million-dollar question is whether the space at B is the same space we had at A or whether B
    constitutes a new ‘volume’ of vacuum.
The Universe is a
binary system: space
and matter

    ________________________________________________________________________________________



    Last modified 04/19/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
I think I'm going to
have to separate
space from matter.
Relativists keep
confusing them all
the time!



    Space-warpers and the lamebrains who designed GPB will argue that this vacuum moves along with the
    chamber. Their reasoning is probably that if space is a structure that can be warped, this implies that it
    can be handled, cut, and transported like a piece of meat.

    Intuition tells us that space is made of nothing and that we have made a window, a cutout in matter. As the
    Earth revolves around the Sun, we see empty space through this cutout no differently than if we had
    mounted our chamber on a spinning carousel in outer space. Our wheeled chamber is on a merry-go-
    round encountering ‘new space’ as the Earth spins like a top. For a moment we had the illusion of
    trapping a chunk of space and dragging it with us, when in fact the space we boxed-up slipped right
    through our fingers.


    2.0   The day relativists boxed space

    Assume now that you are an astronaut in outer space holding a box having a length of one meter per
    side. Upon sealing the lid you enclose one cubic meter of space. Now you approach the ship to show
    your commander the space you trapped. Do you believe that you moved the initial volume of space or did
    this space slip unnoticed through the box? Did the box capture a pound or so of vacuum or was the box
    trapped all along within space? Did void escape when you opened the box to show it to your
    commander? Was it replaced by new space? Does empty space move like the air you breathe? Would
    you conclude that there are subatomic particles of space swirling around?

    Well, get ready for a startling answer to these questions. That’s exactly what the brightest experimental
    and theoretical mathematicians have determined.

    " According to quantum field theory, empty space actually consists of varying
       electro-magnetic fields." [1]

    This is the ridiculous state of ‘Physics’ today. A rational person concludes, rather, that matter cannot
    contain space; it is space that contains matter. We don’t need any experiment from NASA or from SLAC to
    ‘prove’ this, or a theorist from Cambridge to tell us that he derived this correct and verified notion from an
    impeccable equation. The astronaut thought he caught a leprechaun when in fact the leprechaun had the
    astronaut in the bag all along.

    While you are still out there in orbit, let’s do a second experiment. Turn on your flashlight and point it at
    space. Do you see scattering of light, or reflection, or refraction? If space were made of particles, as
    relativists and mechanics suggest, light would have something to bounce against and produce these
    effects. Sound would also be propagated through the particles of space. Experiments demonstrate
    exactly the contrary. Here we see that intuition and common sense are incomparably superior to
    Mathematics when it comes to elucidating Physics. Mathematics is absolutely worthless in this context!


    3.0   How many relativists does it take to contain space?

    Let’s now transform ‘thought’ into a physical entity and assume that it either leans against or contains
    space as illustrated in Fig 2. (I use thought because it is one of the example most often given by laymen
    attempting to imagine the unimaginable next dimension.) The scenario implies that thought is to space
    what oil is to water. For some physical reason neither can encroach into the other’s domain.

    However, if this were true it would outlaw thought from our Universe. Note that the same would result if
    time, a dimension, or whatever is used in lieu of thought. Anything we can conceive to exist cannot serve
    as a barrier to space because otherwise we wouldn’t conceive of its existence. We would not have any
    examples of this magical substance within our Universe. Certainly, we do not see an entity displacing
    space in our vicinity. Hence, we are forever denied the ability to test such an entity because we cannot
    even imagine it.

Fig. 1 A hole in matter, or transporting space?

Fig. 2   Food for thought
Mathematics has no power to elucidate what could contain  the
Universe. This is strictly a conceptual issue. We can conceive of
thought containing space only if both thought and space have
shape.

But then, what gives shape to thought?

The mathematicians suggest that a higher dimension perhaps
contains space.

So what do they mean? Does it make sense to say that height
contains Flatland? What contains the 26th Dimension? Breadth?
If we could attain perfect vacuum in a chamber, is
the Earth then transporting this cutout of cosmic
space around during its orbit? Have the technicians
ripped a chunk of space from the cosmic ocean? Or
are we seeing new volumes of space through the
window as the Earth moves?

    This ‘thought’ gedanken experiment is not a total loss, however, because it helps us zero in on the nature
    of space. What is it about thought that has the ability to contain space in Fig. 2? Can matter drift beyond
    the space border into a pure thought region? Does an object continue to have shape once it departs
    space? Does the thought region also have an end? What contains it?

    My line of reasoning leads me to an important conclusion. In order for you to make any sense of Fig. 2,
    you must regard both space and thought to have borders. Only then can you conceive of thought coming
    up against space. And this reinforces and is consistent with the definition of object. We can only use the
    word object consistently in a scientific discussion if we define it as ‘that which has shape.’ But then, if
    space is not an object, we have identified its most important property:

    space: That which lacks shape.

    Space is a place. It is not a what, but a where. Space is the antithesis of the word object. We cannot
    contain space with a physical entity or medium (vacuum chamber, astronaut box, etc.) or with a concept
    (thought, dimension, etc.) because there is nothing to contain. We cannot escape space because there is
    no boundary to cross. These statements are consistent with the intuitions of some of our mathematicians:

    “ if space is expanding, into what is it expanding? Isn’t there somewhere that it spills
       over? The answer is no.” (pp. 80 – 81) [2]

    “ ‘The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.’ The universe
       would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself.”
       (p. 136) [3]

    Not even almighty God can escape space, for else He would lose His most precious attribute: shape.
    Without shape, God is absolutely nothing (i.e., space)!

    It could be argued that space is just another concept, but this proposal is easily debunked. Space and
    concepts are alike in that they don’t have shape, yet they differ in that concepts are artificial. Humans
    created every single concept that you are aware of including God and space-time. Space was there before
    any of us came around. Nevertheless, what sense does it make to say that we live within a concept             
    (i.e., invented by Man)?


    4.0   The First Law of Physics

    Since the 17th Century binary algebra has slowly grown to challenge the monopoly of the decimal
    system. Unlike decimal numbers, which are represented by ten different symbols, binaries consist entirely
    of zeroes and ones. The digital nature of binary format makes it an ideal system of numbers for decision
    making, which is why its use has been adopted in computing. For the purposes of this page, it is worth
    reviewing how a chip converts electric signals to numbers so that we can extrapolate the analogy to
    space and matter.

    A microprocessor, the brain of a computer, consists of thousands of transistors laid out in neat grids of
    rows and columns called arrays. Aluminum and silicon lines interconnect transistors in the array and
    supply them with current. Each transistor functions as a switch by acquiring a discrete value of either a
    one or a zero. If both lines supply a high voltage current, the transistor is read as a one. If either line sends
    a low voltage current, the transistor does not reach a specified voltage and it is read as a zero. A series of
    transistors combine these two states to create letters and numbers by representing them in binary format.
    Although to the layman computers seem to work by art of magic, the calculations they perform and the
    sounds and images they produce are the result of physical connections and logical processes.

    The human brain works quite like a computer microprocessor although it is a bit more complex. Rather
    than an array of transistors we find inside the brain a web of cells called neurons interconnected by gaps
    called synapses. Information in the form of electrical charges is transmitted from the axon of one neuron
    via a synapse to the dendrite of another neuron where that information is converted into chemical signals.
    Because the brain and the microprocessor are entirely made of atoms, ultimately, the intangible
    mechanism we call thought or memory or calculation are the result of the movement of some type of
    matter. It would not be too far fetched to speculate that the brain's "microprocessor" also uses the binary
    system to produce mind and soul. This, of course, is speculation.

    Last, but not least, our Universe is also a binary system explainable in terms of rational physical
    mechanisms. The Universe consists of two complementary components, matter and space, the yin and
    the yang so to speak, the one and the zero. In the binary system, a one can be added and subtracted and
    carried over. For example the number 2 can be obtained by adding two number ones as follows:

                                      Binary                              Decimal

    Position   >     32 16 8  4  2  1

                                 0  0  0  0  0  1                =                1
                    +           0  0  0  0  0  1                =                1
                             _____________                              ___
                                                          0  0  0  0  1  0                =                2


    In other words, a one plus a one equals a zero, but we carry a one over to the adjacent position, which is
    the twos column. Similarly, two plus two is expressed as follows:

                                      Binary                              Decimal

     Position    >    32 16  8  4  2  1

                                  0  0  0  0  1  0                =                2
                     +           0  0  0  0  1  0                =                2
                              _____________                              ___
                                                           0  0  0  1  0  0                =                4


    Again, a one plus a one in the twos column is added, a zero is placed below the line, and a one carried
    over. Notice that the action figure is the number one. It changes places while place itself remains
    immobile. Numbers flow endlessly as if in motion, but location acts like a board on which numbers are
    drawn. Position is static, immutable. Unlike the one, which represents a number, a zero represents a
    location. The zero’s purpose is not to participate in arithmetical operations, but to serve in a positional
    capacity. For the purposes of Science, zero is not a number. It cannot be added, subtracted, multiplied or
    divided like other any of the other numbers. Zero is strictly a place holder: positional notation. Zero is a
    place where we are going to put a number. And when the number barges in, it does not displace a zero. A
    zero has no way of interfacing with a number any more than space can interact with matter. The zero is a
    character used to express the absence of numbers. Even in the decimal system we will always have
    'something' regardless of how small we imagine our fraction to be. Zero, instead, represents the absence
    of numbers. A zero means that the slate has been wiped clean.

    In fact space is more restrictive than the magical zero of abstract Math. In Math we can do almost
    anything, such as subtract one from one to produce zero. In the real world cancellation of matter and ‘anti-
    matter’ does not result in space, but allegedly in 'energy.' Space is neither energy nor process. Processes
    find a parallel in mathematical operations, not in the symbol zero. Matter and motion are entirely unrelated
    to space.

    Like position, space is motionless. Space is to position and zero what matter is to number and one. A one
    can be divided into seemingly infinite fractions and never become a zero. Similarly, matter can be divided
    into countless pieces, but never become space. Fractions of matter are scattered throughout space and, if
    added up, they could be conceived to constitute a single block of matter. The Law of Conservation of
    Energy requires that the physical account be balanced in the end. It states that in any closed system the
    amount of energy is constant or, in other words, that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If space
    cannot be contained, the Universe is a closed system, and if mass and energy are different states of
    matter, they can be converted from one state to the other, yet never allowed to vanish  (i.e., to leave the
    boundary of space or be converted to space). Matter has nowhere to disappear into. In light of the fact
    that matter and space are complementary components of the Universe, I will restate the Law of
    Conservation of Energy in its correct form and label it the First Law of Physics:

    The First Law of Physics

    Matter cannot be converted into space nor space into matter.

    The nature of matter and space makes them complementary. This realization has the interesting
    implication that the amount of matter in the Universe does not vary. Matter cannot be created from space
    or space from matter, and matter cannot leave space because space has no boundaries to cross. Not
    even God can escape that which has no boundaries!
Let’s play a game. I pick a dimension and you think of the one that encloses it. At some point, the
mathematicians will have to confront the question they routinely shove off to philosophers. A
relativist has to answer what contains space or the last dimension he can imagine. This is a sine
qua non part of THEIR theory. Without it, they have nothing. Relativists like to treat space as a
physical object (when they say it is finite) and as nothing (when they say that it is unbounded).
What encloses space (or space-time)? Nothing! Or better yet, they claim that it is unfair to ask the
question. How self-serving! The only way to resolve this issue is by assuming that space is not
contained. This makes it clear that space cannot possibly be a physical object as relativity holds.