Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.0   Relativists admit that they cannot even imagine our Universe

    One of the most offensive aspects of the arguments of relativity is the insinuation that equations enable mathematicians to
    visualize the 4-D. The only reason they take the trouble to reduce space-time to baby pictures is so that ordinary mortals will
    get an approximation of what the scholars are talking about.

    This argument is debunked by the Math experts themselves. As early as 1921, Einstein preempted detractors and cautioned
    against using visualization as an argument against relativity:

    “ a geometrical-physical theory as such is incapable of being directly pictured, being
       merely a system of concepts”  [1]

    [No kidding! And all this time we thought that ‘geometrical’ and ‘physical’ referred to
     things we could visualize. Pastor Al must have missed playing with blocks in kinder-
     garten!]

    Eighty years later things haven’t changed that much. In Ripples on a Cosmic Sea, the two Australian authors first admonish:

    “Don't try to imagine four-dimensional cubes, whatever you do…” (pp. 29-30)   [2]

    Then, they suggest a couple of ways you can – via analogy, of course – only to concede finally that:

    “…the curvature of space-time is beyond human experience.”[3]

    Greene is one who holds out hope that some people may be able to see in 4-D. He stutters:

    “No. I cannot envision anything beyond three dimensions. What I can do is I can make
      use of mathematics that describe those extra dimensions, and then I can try to translate
      what the mathematics tells me into lower dimensional analogies that help me gain a
      picture of what the math has told me. But the picture is certainly inadequate to the task
      of fully describing what's going on, because it's in lower dimensions, and in higher
      dimensions, things are definitely different…To tell you the truth, I've never met anybody
      who can envision more than three dimensions. There are some who claim they can, and
      maybe they can; it's hard to say.”  [4]

    [Hard to say? These are the wishy-washy wussies of Mathematical Physics who don't
     have the balls to say it like it is! Like all mathematicians, Greene doesn't understand the
     difference between the mathematical and physical definitions of the word 'dimension.'  
     Mathematics cannot under ANY circumstance tell him how many dimensions a cube
     has or what a cube looks like. The ONLY way to 'understand' (i.e., visualize) a cube is to
     look at one! Greene simply needs to open his eyes. Greene has yet to learn that NO ONE
     can visualize the 4-D objects of relativity because they are not objects! All the idiotic
     'mathematical objects' invented by every idiot of Mathematics since Pythgoras are
     abstract concepts! There is nothing to visualize in relativity! But with all his 'extensive
     experience' and self-assuredness, Greene has never figured this out.]

    Hawking doesn’t beat around the bush. He resolutely confesses that:

    “ It is impossible to imagine a four-dimensional space.” (p. 24)  [5]

    [Hawking has yet to reconcile this statement with his assertion to Astronomy that the
     Universe has the shape of an imaginable pea. If, perchance, the pea alludes to space
     rather than to space-time, it would help if he explained how the addition of time would
     change the shape of his pea and bar him from visualizing the resulting object. In
     Yulsman’s article, all illustrations are 2-D renditions of 3-D objects. Nothing in
    Astronomy looks 4-D at all!]

    Therefore, it is misleading to insinuate that pictorial representations are for the sole consumption of lay audiences.


    2.0   How the mathematicians get away with leading you to believe that you've got a problem

    The prosecutor begins his talk by telling you that Math is the language of Physics.

    " The language of physics is mathematics. In order to study physics seriously, one
       needs to learn mathematics that took generations of brilliant people centuries to
       work out." [6]

    [Not only does Schwarz fail to provide any evidence for her unjustified assertion, but
     her claim says more about her blind obedience to authority. What in the world does
     Math have to do with Physics?]

    Next, he confesses casually that he cannot imagine, let alone illustrate the entity at the center of his dissertation:

    " It is impossible to imagine a four-dimensional space." (p. 24) [7]

    Now that he got that off his chest, he proceeds to theorize for the next two hours about an entity no one in the room can
    visualize. The entire movie being screened is done without nouns. There are no shapes, no contrasts, nothing in front of you.
    You cannot visualize relativity.

    The result is that every juror ends up filling in the blanks on his own. It is not that we all think differently and therefore we arrive
    at different opinions. It is that we will necessarily have different opinions if we watch different movies. The idiots of Mathematics
    talk about flat space-time (i.e., 2-D), about curved space-time           (i.e., 3-D), and about unimaginable hyperspherical space-time
    (i.e., 4-D). How many dimensions does our Universe have? Of course, if our Universe can be simultaneously 2-D, 3-D, and 4-D,
    it is not surprising that relativists can explain everything. How are the jurors supposed to reach a verdict if every one of them
    watches a different movie?

    This gimmick of not pointing to Exhibit A works wonders for the prosecution. The mathematicians can get away with making
    outrageous statements without fear of being rebuked. The prosecutor can boast that Mercury rolls around a gravity well made of
    space or that a photon ball slides or rolls along curved space. What are you going to dispute? He has already preempted you by
    establishing that Math is the language of Physics and that you are not supposed to attempt to visualize the theory. You simply
    have to accept it on his authority.

    Actually, the stupid morons of Mathematics have never shown that their equations have anything to do with the physical
    explanation they offer for gravity or anything else for that matter. Their equations could be right on the money and it wouldn't
    matter one iota. There is no way they can show that Mercury rolls around a gravity well unless they can illustrate the crucial
    participants. They will have no trouble making a mockup of Mercury. They will run into a little more trouble sculpting a statue
    of space. The only way we can regard space as a physical object for the purposes of Science is if it has shape. We don't
    understand shapes with equations. We visualize shape with out eyes. We can only visualize shape from a bird's-eye
    perspective. So? Draw for me a picture of space you stupid relativist!

    Indeed, if we can do without Math to identify geometric objects such as spheres or triangles, there should be no reason we
    should need Math or explanations to visualize space-time No one in relativity has ever seen, imagined, or run across 4-D
    space-time! (Why can't Hawking or Blair imagine 4-D space-time despite their mathematical fluency?) Actually, it is the fact
    that no one can imagine space-time that has kept relativity going for so long.

    However, this argument -- that ‘space-time exists but unfortunately we cannot imagine it’ --  sounds suspiciously like the
    Emperor’s Clothes story. If the emperor had seen the robe they were making for him, it would not be so extraordinary, now
    would it? It brings back memories of that pastor I once cornered. Unable to answer the question, he finally quipped that if he
    knew what the Almighty looked like, God wouldn’t be so great! This argumentative tactic has been around for quite a while.
    St. Augustine (c. 400 A.D.) allegedly said:  

    “If you can understand it, it would not be God.” (Sermo 52, 16: PL 38, 360)

    Then, of course, Augustine also invented the antidote:

    “Those who say these things do not yet understand thee.” (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 11)  

    In contemporary times, relativists have reinvented Augustine. They fall back on similar circular Augustinian arguments to
    make their cases.

    Groleau provides fitting closing arguments:

    “Eugenio Calabi of the University of Pennsylvania and Shing-Tung Yau of Harvard
      University, described six-dimensional geometrical shapes…will there ever be an
      explanation or a visual representation of higher dimensions that will truly satisfy
      the human mind? The answer to this question may forever be no.”   [8]

    So again, isn’t it fishy that, on the one hand, relativists claim that space-time cannot be imagined and can only be approached
    only through Mathematics and, on the other, they perennially insist on illustrating space-time?
Analogies are for laymen?

    3.0   Just skip the exhibits and go to the theory

    The analogies of relativity are not genuine analogies, but pseudo-analogies. By ‘pseudo’ I mean that the analogy consists
    of a mixture of Math and Physics, equations and geometric figures, (dynamic) explanations and descriptions of static objects.
    Space-time is not strictly a physical object, but a blend of irreconcilable objects and concepts in an unintelligible brew,
    dualities that enable relativists to parry attacks on their un-falsifiable theory in perpetuum. When you ask how the Universe is
    supposed to be a 4-D object, the relativists answer that the term 4-D refers to mathematical coordinates. It takes four of them
    to specify a point anywhere in space-time. When you ask why we cannot visualize this mathematical object, they reply that a
    physical 4-D object (length, width, height, and the ‘dimension’ of time) is unimaginable. What follows is the ‘analogy’ side of
    their arguments.

    One of the first to rely on pseudo-analogy was the master himself. Einstein was able to persuade gullible audiences that the
    mathematicians could visualize invisible or irrational objects gradually in a series of steps:

    “ I want to show that without any extraordinary difficulty we can illustrate the theory of a
       finite universe by means of a mental image to which, with some practice, we shall soon
       grow accustomed…by using as stepping-stones the practice in thinking and visualisa-
       tion which Euclidean geometry gives us, we have acquired a mental picture of spherical
       geometry.”  [9]

    He urged skeptics to “try to surmount this barrier in the mind.”

    Since his days, examples and analogies have developed into much more formidable sales pitches. Professors use them to
    explain space-time in steps to freshmen. Peers use them to belittle dissenters. And project managers use them to threaten
    subordinates with career re-directioning. Holdouts eventually get the message, suddenly visualize the emperor’s fine robes,
    and yell ‘Halleluiah, I am saved.’ Then, they join the hecklers to ridicule those isolated juniors who have ‘yet’ to come around.
    Analogies, coupled with a Roman circus atmosphere and peer pressure, are the tools responsible for perpetuating the
    Emperor’s Clothes Syndrome in the religion of relativity.
How lucky you are to
have eyes, Stevie. I am
blind and cannot see
space-time. Would you
'explain' it for me?

Fig. 1   Relativity by analogy
A sphere is to a circle what
space-time is to a sphere. So
what have we learned?

    Here I analyze four of the most popular pseudo-analogies that have become indispensable weapons of the
    relativistic arsenal. I refer to them as:
Bill, space-time is kid's stuff for us.
We approach it through equations
and complicated formulas you
cannot even begin to imagine. We
only use the roulette analogy when
we have to paint a picture of the
large scale structure of the Universe
for ignorant peasants like you.  

The typical relativistic 'analogy' goes something like this: a 4-D hyper-sphere is to a 3-D sphere what a 3-D
sphere is to a 2-D circle. [10] If you cut open a ball and spread the rubber flat against the ground, you will get
an idea of the surface area the 3-D ball had before you tore it up. Similarly, if you cut open a hypersphere and
spread it out, you will end up with the corresponding volume the 4-D ‘hyper-volume’ had before we carried
out the unimaginable thought experiment. If you can visualize the transition from circle to sphere, you have
as close an ‘illustration’ as you will ever get from a relativist by extrapolating in like manner the sphere to
space-time (Fig. 1). If you still didn’t get it, perhaps you should begin at a level commensurate with your IQ:
Read Flatland!  

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008