Adapted for the Internet from:Why God Doesn't Exist
 A hypothesisdemands an exhibit

1.0   Without an exhibit, there can be no hypothesis

Physical objects are not only absolutely necessary for a theory of Physics, but also for any scientific theory.
A prosecutor should be able to make a movie of his theory because this is what a theory is: an explanation. A
theory is a story of how or why a physical phenomenon happened. Every verb, adjective, and adverb that the
prosecutor pronounces implicitly alludes to a physical object. Without objects, the prosecutor is simply not
doing Science. It is at this fundamental level where the theories of Mathematical Physics fail the scientific
method.

A prosecutor would be hard-pressed to make a movie using abstract concepts. The juror would be unable to
visualize a concept like she does a stand-alone object. Concepts are relations between objects. Words such
as love, freedom, beauty, direction, infinity, and time are all traceable to TWO objects or to a before and after of
one object. When a prosecutor converts the entire mass of an elephant into a point and calls it the center of
mass, he is no longer alluding to an object. He has now dispensed with the object and is going to talk about
the concept center of mass. It would be irrational for the prosecutor to attempt to move the center of mass later
on during his dissertation. The center of mass is a concept and has no location. If the mathematician wishes to
move something at theory, he must convert the center of mass back to an elephant. We can move objects. We
cannot move concepts.

Mathematical Physics fails because, like traditional religion, it is in the business of moving abstract concepts.
We refer to these concepts- turned-objects as avatars, incarnations, emoticons, or something like that. A
mathematician converts an elephant into its center of mass and places a dot to mark the spot. Then, he moves
the dot. Or he rotates the abstract concept tesseract thinking that it is a geometric figure. A mathematician also
transfers energy,  accelerates fields,  moves mass,  travels through time, and carries forces. The idiots of
relativity and quantum routinely morph concepts into objects and then proceed to move them around like
Christians move spirits. In the words of Poincare:

" It is the simple hypotheses of which one must be most wary; because these are
the ones that have the most chances of passing unnoticed." [1]

Indeed, the mathematicians inherited this bad habit from theologians who, for centuries, have converted
verbs – love, soul, compassion, spirit, grace, eternity – into nouns (e.g., God, heaven, hell, angel, ghost). The
religion of Mathematical Physics differs from Science in that it offers supernatural and irrational explanations
for physical phenomena.

Some mathematical physicists go to the extreme of proposing ‘theories’ without bothering to introduce any
exhibit whatsoever. Milgrom’s alleged MOND ‘theory’ is a case in point. Milgrom says that Newton’s force
equation does not apply throughout the Universe. He modified the equation to fit observation. Great! So,
what did we learn? What causes gravitation? Is it warped space? Particles? Strings? Waves? Force? Field?
A gravity well? Why does one celestial body accelerate towards another? What physical entity causes the
stars at the fringe of a galaxy to orbit at the same rate as those near the center? Unless Milgrom can back his
claim by drawing the invisible intermediary that produces these effects, his alleged ‘theory’ amounts to false
advertising. All that Milgrom has is a mathematical description followed by an unsubstantiated opinion. He
does not yet have a hypothesis, let alone a theory.

2.0   An abstract concept cannot be the ultimate reality underlying a scientific theory

If the definition of the word concept invariably invokes two objects, any topic the prosecutor intends to
present rationally must be traceable to a physical object. What object is relativity traceable to? Can space-
time be the object underlying this theory when it is itself made of two intangibles: space and time? What
object is quantum traceable to? Can a point-particle, an unfathomable dimensionless object (that the
mechanics concede is a concept) serve as the building block of tangible matter? Can we construct a physical
object such as the Sun with the 1-D lines of string theory? If a theory is a movie of what happened, what is the
director going to put on the big screen when the topic of his dissertation is ‘energy transfer’ or time dilation’?
What is he going to transfer? What is he going to dilate? Is he going to illustrate a calorie? Sketch a minute? If
these are the ‘objects’ that mathematical physicists rely on to make their cases, then Mathematical Physics is
a nonstarter.

3.0   Relativists do experiments in the lab with nothing

The mathematicians are fond of saying that an experiment should be able to falsify a theory in order for it to
be scientific. A rational human being concludes that the mathematicians will not be able to avoid dealing with
physical objects. How else is the lab technician going to handle, detect, and measure if there is no physical
object present? What is it that will make the 'detectometer' blip?

Relativists have found a way around this requirement. The mathematical physicists claim that they can infer
the shape of an invisible object indirectly from the behavior of a tangible and observable object in  its vicinity.
Therefore, there is not even a requirement to illustrate the invisible object at the center of the theory because
it has been inferred through logic.

One famous example is Eddington’s ‘proof’ that space is warped, and which relativists cite as a  confirmation
of Einstein's theory. Eddington photographed a celestial object during an eclipse and assumed he was
staring at a bunch of particles swerving in space. [2]  He inferred that invisible gravity was bending the beam
of light around the Sun. Another is the black hole. Proponents allege that they inferred this supernatural
object from the effects a black hole causes on a hapless neighbor. The logic behind this line of reasoning of
Mathematical Physics goes something like this: a bee flying around in circles proves that the invisible space
her itinerary encloses is round. Makes sense?

The recent case of Gravity Probe B (GPB), a project jointly run by NASA, Stanford, and Lockheed follows this
line of reasoning. The purpose of GPB was to confirm GR’s ‘prediction’ that space is warped by observing the
behavior of four gyroscopes:

" Its aim is to measure spacetime curvature near Earth" [3]

Essentially, the designers were testing whether the gyroscopes would touch space. The numskulls who
oversaw the mission recently confirmed that the mission was a success:

"Initial results confirm the expected geodetic effect to an accuracy of about 1%." [4]

Of course, the designers of GPB will object to the particular manner in which I phrased their pricey experiment.
The way they see it, they weren’t really testing architecture, but behavior. The gyroscopes were supposed to
verify whether the degree of curvature of space predicted by relativity is correct:

the geodetic precession of -6606 milli-arcsec/yr is measured to be about
-6618 +/- 97 milli-arcsec/yr, and the frame dragging effect of 39 milli-arcsec/yr
is uncertain by the same roughly 100 milli-arcsec/yr systematic error estimate [5]

But such defenses only underscore the problem. We have to conclude that at some point the GPB designers
took for granted that space is a physical object. The mathematicians were already at the next step attempting
to establish the degree to which this object was bent around. If space is not a physical object to begin with,
their entire experiment is misconceived and whatever data they collected is worthless. If space is unphysical,
not only did they NOT confirm relativity, but they spent an awful lot of money doing so. Again, I am not
questioning their data. I am questioning the manner in which the experiment was designed and the
conclusions reached by these alleged experts. Did GPB confirm that space is a physical object?

The mission managers will insist that the sensitive gyroscopes came up against space and that this alone
confirms that space is a physical medium consistent with the ‘predictions’ of General Relativity and other
experiments.

Let’s review what GPB hoped to achieve to see if this has any chance of being true. Let's first confirm that
the experiment consisted in having the gyroscopes come in physical contact with space:

“ They [the gyroscopes] were intended to measure how space and time are ‘warped’ by
the presence of the Earth, and, more profoundly, if and how much the Earth’s rotation
‘drags’ space-time around with it” [6]

The verb ‘drags’ (always within quotations in relativity so that you can always backtrack and allege in
retrospect that it was just a figure of speech) refers to the phenomenon known as frame dragging. Frame
dragging is the friction between something and space:

“ According to Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, space and time get pulled
out of shape near a forcibly-accelerated or rotating body” [7]

“ when a body moves, or a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and time” (p. 33) [8]

“ One of the predictions of Einstein’s general theory of relativity is that local spacetime
is twisted by the rotation of the Earth… any rotating mass will drag the local spacetime
frame of reference with it…The predicted drag… can affect the paths of light, energy,
and other masses” [9]

So I was not lying. Relativists believe that space (as well as the concepts energy and mass) is a physical
object that can be stretched and warped at will like a hammock. If the people at GPB didn’t set out to prove
specifically that space is a physical object it is because they took this for granted. They assumed that space
is material when they designed the experiment. In fact, the official version of Mathematical Physics is that
space is not only a physical object made of particles, but that it is the stiffest material in the Universe:

The most important thing to keep in mind about Einstein's Universe is the fantastic
stiffness of space -- of the rubber sheet, if you like. Let's put it into perspective: let's
say the magnitude of the stiffness of a rubber sheet is about 1 x Using this criterion,
the stiffness of solid steel is about 100 000 000 000, or 10*(11). Space has a magnitude
of about 10    , a one with 43 zeroes after it! Space is a billion  billion  billion times stiffer
than steel! ... In other words, the enormous but not infinite stiffness of Einstein's space-
time tells us that, while space is not infinitely rigid, it is very, very, very rigid. In fact, odd
as it sounds, space is the most rigid stuff in the Universe. (p. 20) [10]

Therefore, my objection has not been overruled. How do the prosecutors pretend to convince the public that
space is warped without first pointing to an exhibit of space? How can the juror imagine a gyroscope
‘dragging’ space around itself (i.e., interacting with space) unless both the gyroscope and space each
possess a surface (Fig. 1)?

But then, how did the project controllers design their experiment if they cannot even  imagine space-time?

In order for the juror to be able to visualize the physical interpretations of the Gravity Probe B project, the
designers had to draw a picture of space on the blackboard before the probe was built. Certainly, space
must qualify as an object (having shape) before we can talk about warping or measuring it:

we will have made the most precise measurement of the shape of local space-time
(Executive Summary, p. 6) [11]

In Physics, the adjectives warped, curved, and bent may only be used in the context of physical objects.
You can’t have ‘curved’ without the iron rod. Conceptualization precedes experimentation. Shape necessarily
precedes touch. So what did the designers of GPB draw on the board before they went into orbit to convince
investors that this was a worthy venture? How can a juror visualize a gyroscope rolling and tilting on a
racetrack without the racetrack? I have no problems conceding that the gyroscopes are physical objects. I
question whether space is a physical object. The 'shape' of WHAT are the idiots who run the NASA Gravity
Probe B project 'measuring'?
 Your Honor! Bill is acting like a spoiled brat just to havehis way. There is no need to present John's body, theknife, or a picture of the room where John was killed.Here we have respectable witnesses from the relativitycommunity who will testify that Bill is the murderer.

In order for mission designers to visualize a gyroscope measuring the degree of warpage of space around the
Earth, they first had to imagine a picture of the gyroscope and of space. This implies that they ‘assumed’ that
space is a physical object that is amenable to bending. An object is that which has shape. So what is the shape
of space? What entity borders and gives shape to the 'locally warped'  space in  Fig. 1 (i.e., what is the black stuff
that serves as background) Do particles of space shear with respect to other particles of space? What contours
and gives shape to each particle that comprises space? The relativity exhibit is surrealistic. GPB was a
misconceived experiment funded with millions of tax dollars.

What the mathematicians of GPB did was run with the misconceived touch’ definition of the word object that
we find in ordinary dictionaries. Therefore, during the design stage they unjustifiably assumed that space is a
physical object. They didn’t draw it on the board because everyone, including the investors took this for
granted as has been the norm for 400 years. The planners were really at the next stage: imagining the
gyroscopes coming in physical contact with space, which would indirectly certify their hunch.

" in Einstein’s universe, the spin axis of a perfect gyroscope orbiting the Earth
will precess over time with respect to the distant universe, as it follows the
warping and twisting curvature of spacetime." (Executive Summary, p. 5) [12]

[This is really scary. We have a physical object -- a gyroscope -- coming in
physical contact with an abstract mathematical concept: "The concept of
spacetime combines space and time within a single coordinate system" [13] ]

Thus, it is not surprising that mission planners and managers confirmed their predictions afterwards with the
execution of the experiment. If the gyroscopes tilted over, it is because they touched something, and what else
could that be if not space?

4.0   Touch is an invalid criterion to define an object

A simple thought experiment exposes the fallacies of the everyday ‘touch’ definition of object. Assume you
are deep inside the Sun somewhere (or beneath the ocean if you prefer). Will touching a couple of atoms of
hydrogen tell you that you are inside a star, or do you believe that you have to be on the outside of the Sun,
viewing it from a bird’s-eye perspective in order to realize that it is an object? Is the Sun an object because
you can touch it (from within) or because it has shape (from without)? The former answer invokes an
experiment. The latter is solely a conceptual issue. Which is it going to be?

You may argue that if I put you inside an unknown container, you can infer that you are inside an object
because you can touch its walls. Clearly, these walls are real objects because they keep you locked up. You
could have closed your eyes and still have arrived at the same conclusion without having any knowledge
about the container’s external shape. By merely touching the walls you realize that you are trapped inside
some kind of object. Surely this container is not an abstraction if it prevents you from moving freely. This is
more or less the reasoning the designers of the GPB project had in the back of their minds.

The issue is really quite tricky and disorients even the best trained minds. Before you can use the word
object to tell me that you are trapped within one you must define it. Do not assume that I know what you are
talking about. Assume, instead, that you have to explain the meaning of the word object to a wild bushman.
The first thing you realize is that you cannot make him understand the word object by running a test. It is
simply irrational to attempt to prove a definition. In Science, it works the other way around. We define words
in order to subsequently prove and explain theories.

Again the objection is not overruled. And this brings us back to the question:  What is an object?  What do
we mean by the word object? This is the most fundamental question in Physics. Unless the birdbrains at
NASA, Stanford, and Lockheed begin by defining the word object their conclusions are meaningless. Their
experiment is meaningless. They won’t be able to say that space is a warped object or share their physical
interpretation of the experiment with a rational mind because they did not begin by defining the most crucial
word in their vocabulary! Are they doing Math or Physics? The physical interpretation is the only part of their
program that has anything to do with Science. The rest is a bunch of irrelevant equations, a dose of hearsay,
and a waste of money.

I clarify that my argument is NOT that the gyroscopes did not come in physical contact with something out
there.  I am saying that the gyroscopes didn’t touch space as claimed by the project managers, which was
what the expensive project either assumed or was indirectly attempting to test.

What the GPB example shows is that whether a word represents a physical object is a conceptual issue and
not one of proof. We don’t prove that a table is an object by touching it. The word touch entails TWO objects.
The touch definition implicitly invokes the object that does the touching. The only way to ‘verify’ that a table
is an object is by pointing at it from afar, but a table is an object even before we do that. The GPB experiment
does not confirm relativity. It confirms that the morons who wasted all this tax money do not understand the
definition of the word object. If relativists assert that space is a stand-alone physical object, they must be able
to draw it as if they were looking at space from afar. Since relativists realized a while back that this is what the
ordinary man is going to ask them to do, they developed antidotes along the way:

“ in general relativity it became meaningless to talk about space and time outside
the limits of the universe.” [14]

“ It presumes that consciousness can take up a position outside existence as
such in order to observe it” [15]

[Why not? Is space-time a physical object or not? If it is, it has shape, which means
that it has to have a contour. Why can’t relativists imagine this object?]

“ all space sits inside the universe…that means that there is no outside to space.
You can’t travel across the border, because if there is room to move you are still
inside, and if there’s no room to move, you can’t travel.” [16]

[Perhaps we should conclude, then, that space does not have a border, which only
confirms that space is not a physical object. Otherwise, space would have shape! ]

So just when you had the relativist against the ropes and were ready to pummel him, he asks the referee to
stop the fight and allow him to go to the little boys’ room. Then, he never returns to the ring, and, by default,
you don’t win the belt. Is there an equation that relativists can produce that shows that there is no outside of
space-time, or is this just another convenient, self-serving ‘philosophy’ of theirs?

The incongruous attempt to prove objects retrospectively renders relativity un-falsifiable. The GPB people are
essentially denying you the right to challenge that space is a physical object. They take this aspect of relativity
theory for granted alleging that they inferred it from equations. Since equations don’t lie and relativity has been
confirmed countless times and it has never been falsified, space is a physical object and that’s that! If you don’t
like it, go to the university and take a course in advanced Math. Then you’ll understand. The only reason you
don’t accept that space is an object is that you rely on intuition and common sense.
 Fig. 1
 GPB gyroscope touching warped space

11. What gives shape to the gravity
well?
12. What gives shape to the Earth?
13. What gives shape to the black
stuff that gives shape to the
stars and the Moon in the
background?

5.0   The Way of Science

In science we do it differently. The only way to introduce an object in a scientific dissertation is to point from
outside the system and name it. The presentation of the objects that are relevant to a theory is the first step of
the scientific method. I call this crucial phase of the hypothesis: the Exhibits.

assumptions or hypothesis: The first major stage of the Scientific Method. A hypothesis is
comprised of exhibits, definitions, and a statement of the facts.

the Exhibits (or evidence): Presentation or introduction of the physical objects that will play
a relevant roll in a scientific theory’; the first step of a scientific hypothesis.

This doesn’t mean that the exhibit that the prosecutor presents should be taken as gospel. If a relativist
presents a particle at the exhibits phase, this doesn’t mean that light is a particle in reality. It just means that
for the purposes of the instant theory, (i.e., in order to understand it), the juror must assume that light is a
particle. Relativists can likewise present a mockup of space. This doesn’t mean that this is the exact shape
of space. It simply means that this is the entity the presenter will be alluding to during his presentation.
However, if the mathematician manages to point to a mockup of space, he needs to ensure that there is some
medium contouring and providing shape to his model and that he can tell us what this stuff is. This is not a
philosophical issue as the idiots of Mathematics are brainwashed to repeat like zombies in college. This is an
indispensable requirement of the scientific method. This has to do with the object the mathematician is
pointing to. Without a contouring medium or objects, the mathematician is not doing science. Again, these are
conceptual, qualitative issues that an equation has no power to solve. That’s why Mathematics is never a part
of a hypothesis.

6.0   Epilogue

As a side note, I will simply add that the success of GPB was a foregone conclusion. I predicted success
when I first heard of the mission some time before launch. Just to show you that I don’t make retroactive
predictions, I will predict in advance that all tests designed to confirm relativity, quantum, and string theories
to be carried out by the people at NASA, their cronies at the universities, and space corporations which profit
from such ventures are destined to be successful. Always! Simply imagine the political and economic fallout
had GPB happened to fail. If Popper had it right, it takes a single unsuccessful experiment to dethrone
Einstein. There’s simply too much at stake – 100 years of scientific research and economic investment – to
allow relativity or quantum to fall apart so late in the game. Yet Hawking tells us that one of the two theories is
invariably wrong! (p. 10) [17]  You reach your own conclusions!
 Folks? Our mission is complete! Now that we have touched the Moon, we are finally able to listit as a physical object.

________________________________________________________________________________________