Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Relativistic philosophy:

Einstein's idiotic legacy

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 04/14/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008

    1.0   What's wrong with Quantum Mechanics?

    For the last 400 years, the idiots of Mathematical Physics have been debating whether light is a particle or a
    wave. Not being very bright or particularly enlightened with a subject they care little about and which they
    dismiss as ‘philosophical’ anyways, the morons of the establishment finally merged the wave and the
    particle into an unfathomable entity known as a wave-packet. The purpose of this proposal is not really for
    anyone to visualize what a wave-packet looks like, because no one can even imagine such a monster. The
    wave-packet addresses behavior and not structure. The wave-packet is a convenient ‘object’ that
    synthesizes what the mathematicians ‘observe’ in the field. The issue of structure is actually turned upside
    down, with the theorist alleging that if an experiment reveals wave characteristics of light, then light
    ‘behaved’ like (meaning, it was) a wave. And if the experiment reveals particle characteristics, then light
    ‘behaved’ like (meaning, it was) a particle:

    " The Copenhagen Interpretation: A particular experiment can demonstrate particle
       (photon) or wave properties, but not both at the same time (Bohr's Complementary
       Principle)." [1]

    The mathematicians don’t lose any sleep over these matters because they dismiss them as 'philosophical.'

    " There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract 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" [2]

    To them it is more important to talk about wavelength, amplitude, speed, and frequency, none of which
    specifically addresses structure. This is what interests them. The result is that after 400 years of debate the
    idiots still don’t know what light looks like and they haven’t even attempted to brainstorm new
    configurations. Meanwhile, they continue to treat light as a particle in 90% of their writings.

    Here I will lay it straight it on the line. Light is not a wave and much less a particle. The gazillions of
    ‘scientific’ papers ever written about light can now be safely thrown in the trashcan. They are worthless
    without a valid architecture of light to back them up. This will become apparent as I describe the correct
    configuration that light assumes in nature.

    The first clue concerning the structure of light arises from a rudimentary observation. If your hand
    intercepts light (Fig. 1), this wave is not longitudinal or transverse but 3D! Indeed, 1-D and 2-D waves are
    outside the purview of Physics.

    The mathematician may accuse me of attacking a strawman. Of course there are no such things as a flat,     
    2-D plane wave in reality. That's just a mathematical tool or convenient model to aid visualization.

    The mechanics are fooling themselves. They absolutely fall back on a zero-thick, transverse wave of
    Flatland to give a physical interpretation to the phenomenon known as polarization. Without it, the
    mathematicians simply cannot explain this trick of nature! Therefore, even if the mathematicians can explain
    every observation and experiment ever performed, their conclusions are worthless if they cannot extend
    them to the real world. They can 'philosophize' all they want about plane waves and particles and wave-
    packets in the safety of their cubicles, perhaps as a method to brainstorm new theories. The scientific
    method prohibits them from using these abstract concepts as physical objects to explain what happens in
    the lab. In Physics, they have no choice but to point to 3-D architectures.

Fig. 1   Light is 3-D: You can stop light with your hand

    Just in case, QM also has trouble justifying light’s undulating patterns with particles (Fig. 2). Newton’s
    First and Second Laws of Motion would require each particle to be pushed up and down by an extrinsic
    agent. The mathematicians never justify this undulating ability of the particle. They put it in ‘by hand’ and
    hope you don't ask questions. If you do, they clarify that you're staring at a mathematical artifact anyway.
    In their view Math and not Physics is Science. In the religion of Mathematical Physics, they dismiss
    anything related to Physics as 'philosophy' (i.e., just your opinion, intuition, common sense).

    A wave, for its part, is a verb and thus an invalid scientific exhibit. 'Wave' is what a particle does. Hence, a
    ‘wave’ is a description or an explanation, not a physical object in itself. Plane transverse waves, spherical
    waves, and the strings of string theory are unacceptable objects for the purposes of Science because
    they are inherently dynamic (Fig 3). In Science, the definition of the word object precedes the definition of
    the word motion. We cannot have motion without a physical object. The motion of what?

    Therefore, a wave cannot be used as a model for light until the idiot who proposes such a barbaric
    hypothesis tells you what it is that is waving. If he insinuates that 'it' is a particle, then the lamebrain
    should talk about particles and never bring up waves at all. In such scenarios, 'a' wave has to do with how
    a group of particles moves. A wave is not a static, stand-alone entity you point to. A wave is a movie, not a
    photograph! You stare at a photograph. You watch a movie.
If light were a plane wave (i.e., 2-D) it would go right through your hand. The mechanics
should have figured this out decades ago. Instead, they kept modeling and simulating their
equations with particles, and with plane waves when they had no choice. Not being
particularly keen on architecture, the mathematicians focused on the signal going back and
forth and glossed over the intermediary.   The mechanics stopped brainstorming models for
light after the 5th Solvay Conference of 1927! Not a single mathematician in the world today
is even concerned about the physical configuration of light.
Our motto:
"Whether certain or in doubt, doubt!"
I believe that you are
just a little too gullible!
I doubt that you
doubt that I doubt!
This table is rectangular.
This table could
also be round.
I doubt that!

Fig. 2   QM particles cannot simulate
EM orthogonality and sinusoidality
QM and wave theories cannot justify
(i.e., provide a rational physical
explanation for) why electric and
magnetic waves run at 90º to each
other and oscillate around an
imaginary straight axis? In contrast,
the two strands of a taut rope
naturally run at 90º to each other and
coil around an imaginary axis.

    2.0   Why a rope?

    Having said this, I now propose that light assumes a DNA-like configuration (Fig. 2). If we were to freeze the
    Universe this is the physical appearance light would exhibit. If Atom Man were there to take a snapshot of
    light itself for us, this is what the picture would reveal.

    You may wonder what this stale architecture has to do with light? Couldn't I have come up with something
    more exciting, maybe a rocket, an impossible object, or a Rubik's Cube?

    Well, just for starters, the rope intuitively resembles the transverse wave the mechanics and wave theorists
    have been talking about for 400 years. Just consider two of the most fundamental laws of electromagnetism
    known today as Faraday [2] and Maxwell [2] Laws. Taken together, they state that electromagnetic waves
    are comprised of an electric field and a magnetic field oscillating at 90º to each other and inducing the other
    into being:

    "as an oscillating electric field generates an oscillating magnetic field, the magnetic field in turn
    generates an oscillating electric field, and so on" [3]

    Waves and particles have no way of justifying these observations. Why would corpuscles align along or
    oscillate around an imaginary axis? What induces waves (whatever they are) to oscillate up and down
    around an axis (Fig. 2)?

    On the other hand, we can readily appreciate why this would be so with a rope: this is its natural state. In a
    static scenario, each of the strands runs at 90º to the other throughout their extension. A torsion signal,
    then, has no choice but to travel rectilinearly along this medium when it is tightly drawn. Only a tensed, rope-
    like configuration guarantees that the electric and magnetic ‘fields’ will twine around an axis.

    Let’s now pause for a long coffee break or continue with our chat at the water-cooler. Please understand
    that this interruption is an absolute necessity. A mathematician cannot absorb the enormous amount of
    information I have just presented. It overheats his brain and he goes into overdrive. Allow me to explain.


    3.0   The deranged mathematical mind

    •        I don't 'understand' your hypothesis, Bill

    In my discussions with relativists I have discovered that mathematicians have an insurmountable mental
    block when it comes to visualizing images. The mathematician is unable to process baby pictures. You
    point to a circle, the mathematician stares at it, but he does not see a round geometric figure like a normal
    human being would. Equations rush through his mind. The mathematician processes (π r²) or (√¯2 + i ³) or
    some other symbolic expression in his brain. Experience and information have so thoroughly conditioned
    the ‘trained’ intellect that it is impossible to hold his attention on the static object facing us for longer than
    a pico-second. The mind of a mathematician impulsively wanders beyond. Where is the little v? And what
    happened to the little c? Where is the position vector? What is the tension on the rope? And why don't the
    ropes tangle in space? Mathematicians have been brainwashed to reject intuition at any cost. The maxim
    of all contemporary educational establishments is that common sense is the least common of all senses,
    and the results of this erroneous view are evident. What you don’t use, you lose. The mathematicians
    have lost common sense because colleges have taught them not to trust intuition. “Whose common
    sense?” snaps Susskind.  

    So the mathematicians can no longer grasp simple, kindergarten pictures such as the one I have just
    presented. You may not believe me, but, as of this moment, the mathematician has not yet ‘assimilated’
    the model that I have just proposed and illustrated. Some of the ridiculous questions that the
    mathematicians ask or the comments that they make after the presentation confirm to me that the fools
    are still struggling with the basics:

    “How fast does the rope travel?”

    “A rope can be stretched, changing the relationship (c = ƒ * λ). The same
      'speed = frequency * wavelength' applies equally well to sound, oceans,
      and most other wave phenomena.”

    “It sounds a lot like string theory to me.”

    “In many ways your rope resembles so and so’s spherical wave.”

    “Torsion waves have been around for years and we have thoroughly
      modeled them mathematically. A transverse wave is nothing more than a
      cross-section of your rope.”

    “How does the rope fit into the grand scheme of the space-time manifold?”

    How can something so simple as what I am proposing here be so grossly misconstrued by the scholars?
    What do the mathematicians have obstructing the grey matter in their skulls? Sawdust? What do I need to
    do in order for a room full of college grads to just look at the image? I do not have this problem with lay
    people, and I believe that this has something to do with ‘learning pollution.’ Laymen take what I am saying
    unhindered, unbiased, at face value, which is exactly what the scientific method requires them to do. So
    far, I have not explained anything with my rope, and the juror has no reason to jump to conclusions. The
    mathematicians, on the other hand, have an information overload blocking their eyes. Their CPUs are
    already at the next step, pondering whether the rope violates the doctrines they learned by rote in college.
    I am not saying that these questions are not valid. I am saying that these questions are not pertinent to the
    step of the scientific method where we point to the exhibits.

    Therefore, the mathematicians never manage to assimilate the theory because they are occupying their
    brains with questions and objections at the very moment that I am introducing the exhibits. They never
    manage to process the object I am pointing to in their brain in the first place because they are too busy
    rejecting the theory right off hand. Of course, it is no mystery, then, why they later end up asking dumb
    questions like the ones I just listed. The questions are dumb because the mathematicians ask them at the
    wrong time.

    My heartfelt recommendation to any mathematician: forget everything you ever learned about light for a
    moment. Just sit in a comfortable yoga posture for 2 minutes, go “uuuuumh,” and focus your mind on the
    image. Perhaps, if we can get past this barrier together, you have a chance to understand the theory.
    Come on. You can do it!  I’ll hold your hand.


    •        Unfathomable entity

    To make matters even more complicated, the mathematicians are expecting the true nature and
    configuration of light to be some unimaginable, breathtaking entity. Perhaps they expect the waters to
    part and the angels to streak across the sky in chariots of fire while the millions of souls up in heaven
    sound their trumpets. Or maybe they expect a 7-dimensional object or a tribar-like impossible object.
    Circles, blocks, and ropes are things we encounter in kindergarten. How can something as simple as a
    rope account for our complex Universe? How can scores of mathematicians have overlooked this stale
    object in the last 400 years? No! Light definitely cannot be a rope!

    And believe me, there is no way to convince a mathematician to look through Galileo’s scope to verify that
    there are four moons orbiting Jupiter. The numskull asks to see your equations. The latter-day
    philosophers and cardinals seek flashy, revolutionary concepts that build on what they have already
    taken for granted in college. This summarily rules out the rope in the peer reviewer’s mind.

    But this line of thinking is easily debunked. Whatever light is, it’s got to be a three-dimensional object   
    (Fig. 1). Therefore, it has to look like something we are familiar with. All 3-D objects are amenable to
    visualization. In this sense, all objects are ‘simple’: anyone should be able to imagine what light is. If Bohr,
    and Heisenberg, and the rest of them gave up brainstorming structures, this only points to their limited
    imagination! Surely, the idiots of Mathematical Physics will never discover the object that underlies light if
    they search for an unimaginable, unfathomable, breathtaking object or if they continue modeling their
    equations with point particles. Yet more daunting (I should really say funny) is that the mathematicians
    have no trouble accepting surrealistic wave-packets and ethereal wave functions. They just have trouble
    accepting that light could be like the rope you hang your clothes on in your back yard. They have trouble
    identifying light with anything resembling something of our routine 3-D world.

    Nevertheless, even if a mathematician is capable of visualizing a simple rope, he has been conditioned to
    believe that it is impossible to imagine what light is in reality. The messiah of QM, Mr. Bohr, already settled
    that we can’t form a classical image of light, and surely we have tried hard for the last 400 years.

    “ Bohr maintained we can never ‘understand’ the quantum world or assign physical
       meaning to the complex wavefunction.” (Attributed to Weinberg).

    “ The actual definite properties of a physical system ‘do not exist’ prior to the
       measurement and the wavefunction is only interpreted as a mathematical tool
       used to calculate the probabilities of the outcome of the experiments, which is,
       in agreement with positivism in philosophy, the only topic that science should
       discuss.”   [4]

    [What contorted explanation to say so much rubbish!]

    His lame sidekick, Heisenberg, added that:

    " The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has led physicists far
       away from the simplistic materialist views that prevailed in the natural sciences
       of the nineteenth century… one attempt to counter the Copenhagen interpreta-
       tion is an attempt to change the philosophy without changing the physics…
       a return to the ontology of materialism. They would prefer to go back to the idea
       of an objective world."    [5]

    So, as mathematicians see it, the purpose of science is to model the behavior of light with equations.
    Anything else is just philosophy and religion. There is no possibility to visualize light in terms of our 3-D
    macro world. Hence, the mathematicians trivialize or altogether dismiss what I am doing here. They regard
    the first step of the scientific method as ‘philosophy.’


    •           Skepticism for the sake of skepticism

    The  greatest obstacle to visualization is the mathematicians’ extreme skepticism, skepticism for the sake
    of skepticism. Colleges brainwash freshmen to believe that science and skepticism are synonyms. Right
    or wrong, the safest course is to doubt. Skepticism at all costs! Skepticism when among skeptics!
    Skepticism even when confronted with the true nature of reality! Skepticism, healthy skepticism, even
    when staring at the God of Light face to face!

    "Is this thing that is in front of me a chair?"
    "Is what I am holding in my hand a book?"
    "Can I really say that snow is white?"

    "Well, I have been burned before and they won’t catch me off guard this time around.
    I will keep my options open at all costs. I'm here just to listen to new, interesting
    theories anyways, but I won't believe in any of them because someone in the future
    will certainly show them to be untrue. I'm not going to look like a sucker again!"

    The educational system has so destroyed the cherished ideas a mathematician grew up with, so
    conditioned his mind to exotic ideas and arguments, that he questions anyone and everything beyond
    any reasonable doubt. If you present an overly-educated individual with the actual physical configuration
    of light, he will yawn and say ‘Yeah. Interesting! I also heard that light is…’ To a mathematician, any idea is
    just another idea contributed to the pile, and tomorrow someone will come up with a better mousetrap:

    "No matter how 'settled' Science seems to be, new facts and evidence can still
      be discovered... remember that Science is never 'settled.' That's the very
      definition of Science." [6]

    [NO! That's the idiotic definition of Mathematical Physics. Here's the definition
      of Science!]

    The purpose of science is not to find, but to search eternally for something that is taken to be unknowable
    and which will be overthrown anyways. The establishment has perpetuated falsehoods which later trickle
    down to the masses:

    “ Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a proven
       scientific theory is always open to falsification” [7]

    [Pardon my French, but this 'philosophy' is absolute bullshit!!!]

    Don’t get me wrong. I am not insinuating that objects are beyond 'falsification,' at least not in the sense
    that we are unable to show for example that a particle is not a correct model of light. Of course we can.
    The problem with extreme skepticism when it is directed at exhibits as opposed to explanations is that it
    never allows the correct configuration of light to emerge. Whether light is a wave, a particle, or a rope is
    not an issue of theory, but rather of assumptions. Light doesn’t change with successive generations.
    Light cannot be a wave today and a particle tomorrow. What changes is our perception of what light is,
    which only means that we weeded out a couple of hypotheses over the years. You can stop light with
    your 3-D hand and generate a shadow! Therefore, light has a definite physical configuration irrespective
    of whether we have discovered this architecture or not. This summarily rules out the plane wave with
    which the idiots of Quantum explain some of their theories.

    But if you discover the true physical configuration and nature of light tomorrow, the current paradigm
    prevents the establishment from accepting it as the ultimate reality. Everyone has been drilled to
    exhaustion that ‘all’ ‘theories’ (meaning architectures) are falsifiable (meaning temporary). In the peer-
    reviewer's mind, this means that at some unspecified time in the future some bright mathematician will
    propose a different model and so on in perpetuum. Thus, any exhibit that you present to a peer review
    board is treated as a transitory ‘theory.’ The scholars may listen to you only for the novelty, but not to
    really, truly concede that Man has finally uncovered the true configuration of light. In their minds, this is
    simply impossible.

    The current paradigm is a patently false philosophy. The idiots teaching Science and Philosophy in
    colleges have to overhaul this ridiculous line of thinking.

    I am too little, too insignificant to fight against all this hard-headedness. The task is simply overwhelming.
    It is impossible to overcome irrational, extreme skepticism. If you are staring at the God of Light in the
    face, will you doubt simply because you've been brainwashed to doubt at all costs? This amounts to pig-
    headed ignorance and nothing else!

    Now that I got that off my chest, let’s head back to the conference.
Why must we always twine orthogonally
around each other, Al? Why can't we coil
around in parallel for once?

    On the other hand, a rope is a physical configuration that meets the ‘undulating’ requirement with flying
    colors in both static as well as dynamic scenarios (Fig. 4). ‘Rippled’ is the rope’s natural state. We do not
    need to torque or move a rope in any way. A rope is intrinsically sinusoidal. But when you do twist a rope,
    you verify that the outgoing torque signal also 'waves.' A rope embodies two seemingly irreconcilable
    static properties light is famous for. It is simultaneously wavy and straight. From a dynamic standpoint, a
    short series of links rotate in place (standing wave). They generate the waviness light is famous for
    (traveling wave). Yet from a distance, the signal travels rectilinearly along the taut rope. A rope embodies
    both the standing and the traveling wave features in a single stroke, and explains why researchers have
    confused it with abstract transverse waves for so long.

    Fig. 3
Whether plane or spherical,
waves are movies of something
in motion. Matter cannot be
constructed of motion as some
morons without much
imagination allege. The word
motion is defined as two or more
locations of an object! Therefore,
it would be circular to define an
object as the vibration of...

Fig. 4
Why does the electric 'field' run at 90º
to the magnetic 'field'? How can two
mathematical concepts have
orthogonality anyways?

A rope simulates this architectural
feature easily because each strand
twines around the other. This is the
rope's natural state.

Meanwhile, the rope is pulled tight
and remains straight. the signal we
call light has no choice but to run
rectilinearly along this taut medium.
invalid objects
in Science
valid objects
in Science