Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
A sphere is not an
analogy, but the
Real McCoy
Hatfields, huh? Ha, ha, ha. Well, actually,
I was only messin’ with y’all. I’m not a Real
McCoy. We slick city relativists say stuff
like that just to see the look on yer faces,
ha, ha, ha, ha. You should see yerselves
now. Ha, ha, ha. I just took a picture of you.
Anyone wanna have a look? Ha, ha, ha...

    So relativists were not talking figuratively after all! They were describing the real thing. Being the least blessed of artists,
    I am confident I can first imagine and then sketch a balloon peppered with polka dots. I also feel capable of visualizing
    how this balloon expands just as relativists suppose Big Bang did. What prevents the mathematicians from imagining
    the shape of their 3-D, spatial explosion 15 billion years later, or better yet, at 10       seconds when the embryo of Big
    Foot was barely a centimeter in diameter  and had the shape of a pea?

    [ The cover of Discover Magazine displays what relativists claim was the actual size
     of the Big Bang at 10      seconds ('the beginning of time'). The object depicted is
     a 2-D rendition (width and height) of a red, 3-D sphere (length, width, and height),
     approximately 1 cm in diameter and surrounded by an unspecified white medium
     that provides contrast and contour to the sphere.]  

    Relativists reply that I am confusing space with space-time. Space is 3-D and is spherical, but space-time includes both
    3D space and 1D time. This merger rounds-out to an unimaginable four-dimensional object:

    “ time is not completely separate from and independent of space, but is combined
      with it to form an object called space-time.” (p. 23) [4]

    Let’s recap to determine who is really getting confused. First, relativists state that the whole Universe (4-D space-time)
    is physically unimaginable, meaning that we cannot visualize it.

    A classic example of the limitations of our neural wiring is the inability to picture
      more than three dimensions.”   [5]

    Clearly, the mathematicians are referring to physical dimensions (length, width, and height). They are not referring to
    mathematical dimensions (the number of numbers needed to locate a point in space). The mathematicians are not
    saying that we can locate a point on the surface of space-time with four coordinates. They are saying that they can
    imagine a 3-D cube, but not a 4-D hypercube. (If you believe that there are no differences between physical and
    mathematical dimensions, then you have a steep learning curve ahead of you.)

    In other words, relativists illustrate a sphere and call it ‘the entire universe.’ They confess that they cannot even
    imagine a fourth spatial dimension running perpendicular to the length width and height of the sphere (Fig. 2 A).
    Then the mathematicians explain or show a movie of how this sphere expands into an unspecified dark medium
    (purportedly space) (Fig. 2 B). They also refer to this film as ‘the entire universe.’ Neither the entity in the photograph
    nor the one depicted in each frame of the movie is structurally 4-D!  A sphere has length, width, and height (i.e., is
    physically 3-D) irrespective of the number of numbers needed to locate a point on its surface. A bigger sphere also
    has three dimensions. Hence, size is immaterial to our discussion. Relativists backtrack and attempt to neutralize
    your argument by saying that they were only using the sphere as an ‘analogy’ of 4-D space-time when it is plain that
    the sphere is a faithful depiction of the 3-D Big Bang explosion they were describing in the first place and which they
    call ‘the entire Universe’.

Fig. 1   

With or without time,
the universe of relativity is a sphere

Fig. 2   The Emperor's Robe

A. The universe that relativists cannot even imagine
This universe consists of a static geometric figure that has three physical dimensions: length,
width, and height. What relativists have trouble imagining is a 4-D object, (i.e., a 4th dimension
running perpendicular to the other three). Relativists say that this fourth dimension is time.
               1. Is
time a dimension?  
               2. Does the inclusion of time change the
shape of a sphere?  
               3. If it does, is the result a
4-D figure?
B.  The universe relativists explain
This relativistic universe consists of a dynamic movie: a sphere expanding ‘through’ time
from the Big Bang to the present. A sphere is a solid. It has three physical dimensions:
length, width, and height. Each frame in this relativistic movie shows a 3D sphere.  Size
is irrelevant because a larger cube is also a cube and not a hypercube. Clearly, we can
illustrate and see this movie. So, why is it that relativists say that they cannot even
imagine the alleged ‘4D’ (i.e., dynamic) universe they derive from their equations? Could
it be that they confused physical for mathematical dimensions in their dissertation?

    Just to make sure that it is not I who is using the words dimension, space, and universe inconsistently,  let’s hear it from
    the horse’s beak. Relativistic theorist Tayler says it thus:

    We must not regard our spherical space as expanding into an existing space. The
      closed spherical space is the entire Universe and what is happening is the expansion
      of space itself.” (p. 93)  [6]

    Jean Heidmann, adds:

    The space containing the Universe has the three dimensions of our everyday experience:
      length, breadth, and height (p. 27) …three dimensional space corresponds to the space
      that the Universe lives in. (p. 78) ... the recession of the galaxies can be explained via the
      expansion of space. (p. 80)   [7]

    [Oh brother!]

    “ We can define the universe as everything there is, so in that case there is nothing
      outside of it… Another definition for the universe is the observable universe… We
      actually think that the universe might be infinite in extent, and so goes on forever” [8]

    [In which case ‘it’ cannot be expanding because ‘it’ is not a physical object. If
    relativists want to talk scientifically, they have no choice but to define the word
    'object' unambiguously!]

    “ if the universe is infinitely big, then the answer is simply that it isn’t expanding into
      anything; instead, what is happening is that every region of the universe, every
      distance between every pair of galaxies, is being ‘stretched’, but the overall size of
      the universe was infinitely big to begin with and continues to remain infinitely big as
      time goes on, so the universe’s size doesn't change, and therefore it doesn't expand
      into anything.”[9]

    [Did this guy ever go to college? In relativity theory the Universe is expanding, but he
    says that the size of the Universe doesn’t change because it is ‘infinitely’ big. What
    does being ‘infinitely’ big – whatever that means – have to do with not changing size?
    But let’s continue with this guy's assessment]

    If, on the other hand, the universe has a finite size, then it may be legitimate to claim
      that there is something ‘outside of the universe’ that the universe is expanding into.
      However, because we are, by definition, stuck within the space that makes up our
      universe and have no way to observe anything outside of it, this ceases to be a
      question that can be answered scientifically. So the answer in that case is that we
      really don't know what, if anything, the universe is expanding into.”  [10]

    [Absolutely stunning! Let's recap. The Universe is infinitely big and we won't bother
     to prove it. We'll just accept it on the authority of the mathematicians. But if the
     universe has a finite size, then we don't have the means to prove this so the question
     is meaningless and unscientific!]

    There are three possibilities for the curvature of the universe: space can be flat,
       spherical or hyperbolic. [11] [In other words, it is a geometric figure and has shape!]

    “ The complete space is the four-dimensional world… the minor space is what we
      generally call space.” (p. 158)  [12]

    [Give me a break! Apparently, Herr Hermann wasn’t very inspired on that day.]

    the universe itself always has and always will consist of all of space. There is genuinely
      nothing -- not even space -- beyond the 'edge' of the universe. (p. 557) [13]

    Did I miss something? Clearly, it is not the juror who confuses 3-D space with the ‘entire’ 4-D Universe or physical with
    mathematical dimensions during trial.

    2.0   Flat, spherical, or 4-D space-time?

    The punch line to the balloon analogy is that there are dissidents within the relativistic community who clearly infer
    something different from the Math. These people do not visualize a sphere expanding 'through' time (whatever that
    means). They believe, instead, that it is a flat board expanding through time! They tell you that you live within a pancake.
    The idiots of relativity are so confused after going back and forth between space, universe, dimensions, and coordinates
    that they don't know what to illustrate any more. So everybody illustrates something different and everyone in relativity
    gives everyone else an attaboy.

    Fortunately, some mathematicians put these folks in their rightful place! The smarter mathematicians know better and
    are not fooled by infiltrators and provocateurs from the Flat Cosmos Society. These folks stand their ground, rectify these
    misconceptions, and illustrate the Real McCoy: the true-blue 3-D universe of relativity.
    But I suspect plagiarism. Having read much of what he writes, I have a tough time believing that Wright can come up with
    original thoughts. I suspect that he probably stole his balloon analogy either from the Muslims or from the Christians.

    And, of course, there is yet another sect of relativity which disagrees with all of these guys and argues that the Universe is
    neither a 2-D washboard nor a 3-D balloon. Despite that they cannot draw their proposal, these people claim that the
    Universe 'looks' more like a four-dimensional hypersphere.

    Relativists’ problems stem from their failure to rigorously define the crucial words that make or break their physical
    interpretations. Sometimes they mean space (e.g., the 3-D sphere that relativists draw and which they label 2-D),
    sometimes they mean only the matter we find within space (galaxies flying apart), and sometimes they include time
    and call the whole shebang 4-D space-time, by which they mean the entire, unimaginable, relativistic universe and the
    real Universe. They also fail to define the crucial word dimension. Actually, it is not that they fail to define it, but that they
    use the word to refer to number lines.

    To summarize, relativity’s explanations fail because the mathematicians rely on ordinary as opposed to scientific definitions.

    1.0   The ridiculous 'balloon analogy' of relativity

    The sphere is the geometric figure that relativists invoke the most to exemplify their beloved space-time. It   turns out that
    the sphere is not so much an example of the relativistic cosmos, but a scaled down model of the real McCoy: a mockup.
    The sphere is a straight-forward illustration of the universe relativists are ‘explaining.’ The theory holds that galaxies are
    separating from each other not because they are themselves moving, but because the space between them inflates.

    “ Generally speaking we imagine galaxies scattering themselves into some pre-existing
      space, like the shrapnel of a bomb. In fact, the relativistic interpretation shows this to
      be incorrect. Instead we must think of the galaxies like currants in a cake that expands   
      progressively as it bakes…As space grows, it carries the galaxies and their stars with
      it.” (p. 80)  [1]

    “ Suppose that there are spots on the balloon to represent the different galaxies, and
      take the two-dimensional surface of the balloon itself to represent the entire three-
      dimensional spatial universe. It is clear that from each point on the balloon, all other
      points are receding from it. Likewise, as seen from the vantage point of each galaxy
      in the universe, all other galaxies appear to be receding from it, equally in all directions.”
      (p. 327)   [2]

    Trapped in the cosmic sea, these stationary islands drift apart like polka dots painted on an expanding balloon. Kaufmann
    illustrates a boy blowing a balloon covered with coins, which recede from each other as the balloon expands. He calls it the
    expanding balloon ‘analogy’ and tells us that:

    “ The expanding universe can be compared to the expanding surface of an inflating
      balloon.” (pg. 555. Figure 28-1)  [3]

    Any frame in the films that Heidmann and Kaufmann explain displays a Universe consisting of three spatial dimensions
    – length, width and height.


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008