Just when you figured out that energy is a packet, an ability, a capacity, and motion all in one, the
    relativist waves a genuine object – a magic wand – and disintegrates the entire concept before your very
    eyes. Energy, he tells you, is absolutely nothing.

    a.   Energy is nothing part 1

    The mathematician begins his presentation claiming that light is the undulation of nothing:

    “ Electromagnetic waves differ from other transverse and longitudinal waves in that
      they do not need a medium ...to travel through.” [1]

    or of a concept known as ‘field’:

    “ Light waves…do not need a medium to travel through…A light wave consists of
      energy in the form of electric and magnetic fields.”  [2]

    Then, he equates light with energy:

    “ Radiation is energy that travels and spreads out as it goes-- visible light that comes
      from a lamp in your house or radio waves that come from a radio station are two types
      of electromagnetic radiation.” [3]

    Logic compels us to conclude that energy is light which has no mass and is the undulation of nothing.

    b.   Energy is nothing part 2

    The mechanics also insinuate that energy is nothing when they claim that a collision of two particles
    results in ‘annihilation,’ implying that the participants were reduced to nonexistence:

    “ to reduce to utter ruin or nonexistence; destroy utterly” [4]

    The mathematicians equate this nothingness/nonexistence with energy:

    “ the conversion of rest mass into energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation.” [5]

    Accelerators are limited to energies that are quite low compared to those during
      the Big Bang... Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in
      the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by such physicists as Steven
      Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zeldovich of Moscow suggests that the universe
      began as a perfect vacuum and all the particles of the material world were created
      from the expansion of space... This result is astonishing. It means that, in a very
      brief interval Δ t of time...matter can spontaneously appear, then disappear... these
      particle-antiparticle pairs are called virtual pairs. They don't 'really' exist; they
      'virtually' exist. (p. 577-578) [6]

    [Kaufmann tells us that this is authoritative. It has the backing of Steven Weinberg,
    who studied at Harvard! What more is there to say?]
    When pressed, the mathematicians will deny, disclaim, or point to the fine print. The particles did not
    actually convert to absolutely nothing. The particles really converted to more particles:

    “  the particles are not actually made into nothing, but rather into new particles” [7]

    “ the virtual particles can materialize and appear as real particles in the real world”
      (p. 578) [8]

    [You wonder how a virtual particle differs from a real particle. What is the shape of a
      virtual particle during those ‘uncertain’ moments in which it ‘disappears’?]

    But the word annihilation was coined to persuade the audience that something magical took place. If a
    particle simply converted to another particle no one would make such a fuss about it. The mathematicians
    insinuate that the particles turned into nothing: that they disappeared. This is what triggers the ooohs and
    aaahs! But you will never see a relativist put his reputation on the line for this word when you push him
    against the wall.

    c.   Energy is nothing part 3

    And finally, relativists also insinuate that energy is nothing when they equate energy with the vacuum:

    “ 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.” [8]

    So let’s run the insinuations by again in fast forward. Light is energy, which is the undulation of nothing.
    Two particles annihilate and turn into nothing, meaning energy. The vacuum is nothing, but it is made of
    energy. Hmmm? It seems like energy means nothing to a mathematician!

    d.   Energy is nothing part 4

    To show you that I am not putting words in anyone’s mouth or taking statements out of context I will let
    Hawking tell you in his own words that energy and absolutely nothing are synonyms:

    “ The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe
      quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole,
      it contained nothing… relativity and quantum mechanics allow matter to be created
      out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs.” (p. 97) [9]

    So, it is not me who is mistaken or who is attempting to mislead the jury. Relativists are the ones who self-
    servingly pick and choose when the formidable word energy is something and when it is nothing in order
    to win the instant debate. Before the Universe came to being, it was nothing, meaning it was only energy:
    particle and antiparticle pairs or positive and negative energies that combine to form nothing:

    “ in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/anti-
      particle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The
      answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the
      universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by
      gravity… the gravitational field has negative energy… this negative gravitational
      energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total
      energy of the universe is zero.” (p. 129) [10]

    [How does the concept energy convert into a 3-D particle? Please explain the physical

    The mathematicians always have a zero or an infinity handy to win an argument. Before the Universe
    came into being there was nothing (zero). Then, suddenly energy appeared out of nowhere (infinity). But
    there is no contradiction because energy is nothing (zero). I’ll prove it to you. Take positive infinity plus
    negative infinity and you end up with nothing (zero). But this nothing (zero), meaning energy (zero), is
    comprised of countless particle and antiparticles pairs (infinity). When these particles get a divorce, they
    turn into space-time (infinity). We have created something (infinity) out of nothing (zero). See how easy
    Mathematics is? And you tried to avoid it in high school!

    So when a relativist says that the increase in mass at high speeds is due to an increase in energy, what
    has he explained? He has described a phenomenon he doesn't understand with a word he hasn't defined.
    What is there to challenge in a theory that avails itself of such a versatile word? The word energy is more
    supernatural than the God of the Christians! In retrospect, it is not surprising that, although the word energy
    has been around since the days of Aristotle, Nobel Prize Feynman wrote that physicists still cannot tell us
    what energy is. There are simply too many and irreconcilable notions of the word energy to understand
    anything through it. Certainly, the mathematicians of relativity cannot claim that energy increased during
    the alleged mass increase of Special Relativity because energy is just a concept. Energy is a Ptolemaic
    explanation the mathematicians offer for certain physical phenomena. In order to account for relativity’s
    mass increase, the mathematicians are in effect increasing the quantity of an explanation. Round and
    round a relativist goes and never makes sense of anything.
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Energy is a
synonym of
…and when the shark was
just about to bite its tail off,
the frightened minnow
swam away at the speed of
and that’s when I caught it.
Jonah Bill
telling another of his whopping fish stories

    Pages in this module:


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008