Is space-time2-D, 3-D, or 4-D?
 Adapted for the Internet from:Why God Doesn't Exist

1.0   The multi-dimensional space-time of relativity

If relativists ever manage to agree and decide that space-time is a physical object, the next thing they need to ask
themselves is why they have trouble visualizing it. Why can you see a chair and not space-time?

Relativists answer that space-time is a four-dimensional object and that, unfortunately, us 3-D beings are stuck in
3-D space and are limited in our physical perceptions.

" A classic example of the limitations of our neural wiring is the inability to picture more
than three dimensions." [4]

The mathematician asks you to put aside your common sense and intuition and believe that 4-D space-time is a
physical object on which planets, stars, and photons roll, but you are denied the right to demand to see a sculpture
of this object. You just have to praise its beauty and accept its existence on the authority of the mathematicians.

This suspicious excuse brings back memories of a story I hear as a child...

In the 19th Century, Hans Christian Andersen wrote The Emperor’s New Clothes, the story of a gullible emperor
who hired two swindlers posing as weavers to make the finest of robes for him.  The would-be tailors made the
emperor and his courtesans believe that only those deserving of their jobs could see the suit. Then they went
through the motions of weaving and sewing inexistent thread. This cunning stratagem worked its way through
each of the king’s assistants, who, for fear of hearsay – and of losing his job – opted to eulogize an inexistent
gown rather than confess the inability to see it. The story ends with a stoic emperor parading around the realm
in nothing but pride.

Andersen’s proverbial tale is a perfect analogy for space-time, General Relativity, and Mathematical Physics. Like
the emperor’s robes, space-time is a myth and, like the hoodwinked king, relativists are riding naked around the
realm of Science. The funny thing in relativity is that the swindlers ended up believing their own fibs.

We first encounter the weavers of relativity telling the emperor that the Universe looks like an expanding balloon. [5]
Indeed, the sphere is the geometry most often used to depict space-time. The first messenger the king sends,
however, timidly reports back that space-time appears to have the shape of a cylinder, or perhaps a saddle…you
know…something like a doughnut.  [6]

Huh?

A little disconcerted, the king sends a second envoy. This fellow comes back and tells His Majesty that space-time
consists of two nested doughnuts pierced by what appears to be a rolled-up newspaper. [7]  He insinuates to his
master that this tiny ‘twistor’ version is a subatomic mockup of the Universe. [8]

His Eminence, now completely intrigued and impatient, finally sends in the Royal Astrologer, a man with impeccable
qualifications. This emissary looks, comes back, and goes into a trance. He tells the king that he visualizes infinite
mother-child inflationary universes interconnected by wormholes.       (p. 625) [9]  The entire scheme, he says,
resembles a cross-section of an ant hole.

At this point the crowd gathered at the palace begins to murmur. Some members of the court comment that
space-time is like an invisible flowing stream bending around obstacles found in its path. [10]  Others whisper
that they imagine space-time as a foamy sponge. [11]  There are also those in the crowd who visualize space-time
as a mystical chain mail, a grand cosmic armor interlinked via one-dimensional loops. [12]  Yet others flatly tell his
Excellency that Big Bang has the shape of a pea. (p. 38) [13]

Considering that Mathematics is supposed to be a precise science, it is perplexing that relativists have arrived at
widely differing physical interpretations of the fundamental hypothesis underlying their theory. But what really
puts the icing on the cake is that all of these visions are 3-D. They are all  2-D representations of 3-D objects.
(See, for example, the Physics Web, WMAP, and Wikipedia versions of the universe.) GR’s equations, instead,
‘predict’ that space-time is 4-D.

" Spacetime is usually interpreted as a four-dimensional object with space being
three-dimensional and time playing the role of the 4th dimension... our universe
has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time... a space-time
continuum is mathematically defined as a four-dimensional, smooth, connected
pseudo-Riemannian manifold" [14]

" All we know is that our space-time is 4 dimensional to about a few parts per
hundred billion" [15]

[Now what sense can this idiotic statement have? Are you 3-D to a certain level
of accuracy? Do you believe that Dr. Odenwald will tomorrow prove that you
are 3-D and a half?]

If this weren't so, some bright relativists say, it would not be possible for humans to exist:

" We argue that all but the (3 + 1)-dimensional one might correspond to `dead worlds',
devoid of observers, in which case all such ensemble theories would actually
predict that we should find ourselves inhabiting a (3 + 1)-dimensional spacetime. " [16]

If a box is three-dimensional because it faces simultaneously along the mutually-orthogonal dimensions of length,
width, and height, a 4-D object would have to project a fourth line perpendicular to all three (Fig. 1)! Of course, it
doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that such a monster is beyond imagination! So again, is space-time 3-D
or 4-D? If space-time is unimaginable, why did the mathematicians try to illustrate it? In what way will an analogy
help us visualize space-time?
 Fig. 1The definition of the word dimension of Physicsversusthe definition of the word dimension of Mathematics
 Since the days of Descartes, the idiots of Mathematical Physics have confused number lines for dimensions. The mathematicians use parallels and meridians and call them coordinates or dimensions or whatever. To make matters worse, they routinely leave out the 3rd (physical) dimension, the one they call radius or diameter. They call it height, and replace it with a number line called time. This is how they arrive at the ridiculous conclusion that a sphere is 2-D. The sphere later magically morphs into a 4-D geometric figure when the mathematicians attempt to convince you that you live within a concept called space-time. These misconceptions have onlyto do with semantics. The mathematicians are not using their definitions consistently.
2-D ST    " Microwave background measurements point to flat, infinite space… Inflation theory
explains flat space." [1]

3-D ST    " Einstein made the revolutionary suggestion that gravity is not a force like other forces,
but is a consequence of the fact that space-time is not flat (p. 29) … Gravity is so strong
that space is bent round onto itself, making it rather like the surface of the earth." (p. 44) [2]

4-D ST    " Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing
the role of the fourth dimension." [3]

The root of the problem in the instant debate is that relativists use inconsistent versions of the strategic word
dimension. The dimension of Physics has to do solely with physical objects. The dimension of Mathematics has
to do solely with concepts. It belongs strictly to ordinary speech. The mathematical definition of the word
dimension is unscientific because it cannot be used consistently in a dissertation. A table is 3-D, but a point on a
table may be specified with 1, 2, 3, or as many mathematical dimensions you wish to invoke. If you say that
temperature is a dimension, the point on the chair can now be specified with four dimensions. Does this mean
that the chair is now four-dimensional?

To complicate matters, the mathematicians use the word dimension inconsistently throughout their presentations.
They alternate back and forth between the dimension of Mathematics and the dimension of Physics. Whenever a
mathematician uses the word dimension, you have absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

2.0   A relativist uses two irreconcilable definitions of the word dimension to make his case for space-
time

The inconsistent arguments raised by relativists raises further doubts about their understanding of relativity theory
in particular and the scientific method in general. There can be only two possibilities:

a.  According to the Mathematicians, the term ‘4-D’ means that it takes four coordinates or numbers
to specify the position of a point or event:

" an object is said to have as many dimensions as there are axes required
to locate its position in space." [17]

Therefore, this mathematical notion of 4-D is unrelated to the physical appearance of space-time
itself and should not preclude relativists from visualizing space-time (Fig. 1). The fact that
Hawking needs longitude, latitude, and altitude to specify the location of a basketball within his
garage at 2 o’clock in the afternoon does not make either the ball or the garage physically four-
dimensional.  In other words, relativists have no grounds to use their mathematical
definition of dimension as an excuse for why they cannot illustrate their 4-D Universe. They are
alluding to relations, to the location of one point with respect to another. This has nothing to do
with architecture. According to their definition, a point on a (physical) 3-D object can be specified
with as many (mathematical) 'dimensions' that you care to invoke.

" dimensions can also be other physical parameters such as the mass and
electric charge of an object, or even, in a context where cost is relevant,
an economic parameter such as its price." [18]

In relativity, you are allowed to include anything you want as a dimension. You can even
include temperature or color or the smell of space-time if you wish.

Of course, the mathematician may attempt to deny this, yet it is the idiots of Mathematics who talk
about 11 dimensions, 26 dimensions, and infinite dimensions. So what do they mean by this?
What are all these lines? Do they run perpendicular to each other? If the mathematical morons are
going to introduce words such as time and mass and energy, what do these words have to do with
dimensions? Does an idiot of Mathematics become a 4-D being because, in addition to the length,
width, and height of his body he also moves? A mathematician may want to specify the dimen-
sions of table with an ordered pair, triplet, quadruplet, or as many as he wants. This will not affect
the shape of the table. We will continue to say that the table is three-dimensional. So how does the
'dimension' of time change the shape of space-time? Why does the inclusion of time now make
space-time unimaginable? A balloon that expands 'through time' is simply a  larger balloon. Why
do the idiots of relativity say that they cannot imagine this balloon?
 Fig. 2   Multi-dimenisonal space-time
 Relativists describe, illustrate, and explain three different universes. Of course, it isdifficult to falsify such a theory.
 Mmmm.Which modelshould I study for the test?

b.  On the other hand, if the mathematicians were referring to physical dimensions –  length, width,
and height – we simply have to determine whether their universe consists of 3 or 4 spatial
dimensions.

If 4-D, it is clearly impossible to illustrate space-time, and the question remains
as to why relativists took the trouble in the first place. Could it be that they don’t
understand their own theory? Certainly, no analogy or object that the Flatlander
can draw in 2-D will help his partner visualize the third dimension!

If 3-D, then again relativists again have no choice but to pull out their crayons.
 Hey Bill! Eat your heart out!I got all the questions right on the relativity test.100 % correct!
 Congratulations, Steve,you lucky dog!I didn't get any of 'em right.I don't understand any of this shit.

________________________________________________________________________________________