Why are the words adjective and adverb included in this glossary? What does this have to do with
Physics or with Science? Let’s look at an example from the relativity folklore to see how the
mathematicians inadvertently extrapolate ordinary speech into scientific dissertations and reach
Relativists claim that their universe is ‘finite, but unbounded’. This so-called no-boundary hypothesis
was concocted by mathematicians Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle to answer why the universe could
be both ‘finite’ (meaning that time and space are finite in extent) yet ‘unbounded’ (meaning that time and
space are rolled up so as not to present boundaries or edges to a traveler circling around it). Further
inspections shows that this explanation has nothing to do with the actual universe and all to do with
grammar and semantics. Obviously, relativists don’t seem to understand the differences between
adjectives and adverbs.
In Physics, we can use an adjective exclusively in the context of structure. For instance, the adjectives
flat, straight, or continuous can be used to modify or describe a wooden board. On the other hand, it is
incongruous to use the adjectives flat, straight, or continuous to modify the verb ‘to jump’. Jumping can
at best be constant, incessant, or perpetual. Hence, words which function as adjectives in ordinary
speech may not be adjectives for the purposes of Physics. In the phrase ‘incessant motion’ the word
incessant plays the role of an adjective because it qualifies the noun motion. However, this is true only
in ordinary speech. For the purposes of Physics, the word motion is exclusively an activity: a verb. The
word motion does not represent a physical object, but what an object does. The word motion is a noun
in our vernacular only because it may be used as the subject of a sentence (i.e., a term). In Science, a
concept may not serve as the ultimate center of attention. A concept should always be traceable to at
least one object.
Concepts may serve as the topic of discussion only in Philosophy. In Physics, only physical objects
may serve as valid subjects of study. If adjectives modify objects and adverbs qualify verbs, the word
incessant is an adverb for the purposes of Science. The adverb incessant may only be used in a
dynamic context. In the expression ‘incessant cube’ the word incessant refers to the motion the cube
undergoes and not to a static attribute comparable to flatness or straightness.
The words finite and unbounded are adjectives in both ordinary speech and in Physics. However, in
their ‘finite, but unbounded’ argument, relativists use the word unbounded not as an adjective, but as an
adverb. They justify their ‘finite’ view of the universe on the basis of spatial extent. The justification
relativists give for the ‘unbounded’ segment of the presentation, instead, has to do with ‘perpetual
running around’ or 'perpetual counting of stars.' Relativists can perhaps argue that they can run around
the surface of space-time incessantly or constantly, but hardly unboundedly. The reason for this
tortuous usage is clear. It has to do with convincing the public that relativity has resolved the age old
question of whether the Universe is finite or infinite. With this sleight of hand, relativists insinuate that
there is no contradiction in relativity between a universe which is both finite and ‘unbounded’ (wink,
The misuse of adjectives as adverbs does not stop here. Relativists have been forced to use adjectives
as adverbs in their entire vocabulary, an outcome which in retrospect was predictable. Relativity is
founded on Mathematics and Geometry. Mathematics is a language that deals exclusively with motion,
and, to this very day, the fantasy relativists call Geometry does not contain a single valid geometric
figure. Not a single structure of relativity or of modern Geometry, not one ‘mathematical object’ is a still
image. The alleged ‘objects’ of relativity are all ‘constructed’ dynamically, piece by piece, in a series of
frames. The objects of relativity are movies and not photographs or sculptures. Of course, if a verb is
artificially morphed into a noun, the qualifier that accompanies it is invariably converted from adverb to
adjective. It is this state of affairs that has led relativists to use adverbs as adjectives and vice versa.
Among the most notorious self-contradictions of Mathematics we find the expressions: ‘continuous
function’, ‘infinite numbers’, ‘straight path’, ‘longest dimension’, ‘warped space’, ‘weak interaction’,
‘continuous wave’, ‘one-dimensional continuum’, ‘infinite energy’, and ‘elliptic orbit’. The second terms
of each of these expressions are not nouns for the purposes of Physics and this converts such
phrases into metaphors and figures of speech. Relativists have inadvertently converted adverbs into
adjectives in order to sell their purportedly static ‘geometric’ theories. They are not expressing their
conclusions with scientific language, but with ordinary speech.
For a further information on the use of adjectives and adverbs see also:
After 3000 years, the morons of Philosophy have no idea what a concept is
GR's 3-D flatlander
Is a line continuous or segmented?
The idiots of Quantum say that a cat can be simultaneously dead and alive !
Theists, atheists, and agnostics have no idea what they're arguing about!
1. A word that modifies and is used to describe an object.
2. An inherent, static, objective, property or attribute of an object (e.g., flat, continuous, straight,
A cube is not more 'spherical' than a pyramid nor a pentagon more 'circular' than a square. A sphere is
spherical! A rule of thumb to distinguish adjectives from adverbs is to test whether the qualifier in
question applies in the context of a still image. Adverbs apply only in the context of intangible concepts.
Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008