Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    In order to please the mathematicians, let’s concede for the sake of argument that a sphere is an analogy and not a mockup
    of space-time. This means that we are going to relate space-time not to a static sphere (the object), but to its behavior (an
    expanding sphere). The issue that needs urgent attention is the misguided notion that motion or time alters in any way the
    shape of a geometrical figure. Not a single definition of a plane or solid makes a provision for time. An object is something
    we visualize in a single image: conceptually, in a cross-section of time (i.e., an instant). For example, we invented the word
    sphere after visualizing a static figure. This definition should remain unalterable irrespective of what we do with the sphere
    later on. Surely, if we mold the balloon into a cube, we can no longer continue calling the resulting object a sphere. The
    sphere remains a sphere only if while expanding it doesn’t change its shape.

    The mathematical morons have never understood this simple fact. They unwittingly modify their definitions every two
    seconds during their dissertations:

    “ a sphere becomes an ellipsoid when scaled differently”  [1]

    [ NOT! ]

    [Perhaps this is true in the idiotic religion of Mathematical Physics! In Science, a sphere
    remains a sphere throughout the entire dissertation. Any dent, blemish, or distortion,
    and your money is instantly refunded. A sphere remains a sphere no matter what, or
    else we can no longer call it a sphere. The idiots of Mathematical Physics perpetually
    amend their definitions retroactively and prod on like stupid fools that they are.]

    “ Take a sheet of paper on which there are straight lines, circles and triangles, roll it into
      a cylinder and join together the two edges. From the viewpoint of imaginary beings on
      this two dimensional space nothing has changed in regard to the properties of triangles
      and circles, which seem the same as in flat Euclidean space.” (p. 73-74)  [2]

    [Dear Jean: I did the experiment as you told me, and followed your instructions to the letter.
    The straight line became a circumference and was no longer straight, and the circle and the
    triangle got all bent out of shape. I no longer have triangles, circles, or straight lines. What
    should I do? Please advise! Yours Truly, Bill.

    P.S.: I fear that if the Flatlanders didn’t notice the difference between a circle wound
             around the cylinder and the straight one back home in Flatland it is because I may
             have accidentally squashed their mathematical 2-D brains in the process.]

    Now that we are aware of the problem, let’s try the gedanken experiment in reverse. We remove the structurally-irrelevant
    'dimension' of time from 4-D space-time. How does the spherical shape of the initial 4-D space-time differ from the resulting
    3-D sphere? If a cube sitting on the table at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon is 3-D, does the cube have a different shape if we
    don’t specify time? Is a time-less cube no longer 3-D?

    The misconceptions of relativity originate in the bad habit the mathematicians have of ‘constructingsolids by swinging,
    rotating, and scanning planes. Such a process invariably results in a motion picture (volume) and not in a static statue
    (object) (Fig. 1).
In what way does
time affect the shape
of a cube?

Fig. 1   How to mold a sphere

The idiots of Mathematics squash a sphere and
continue calling it a sphere, or they
bend a triangle
and continue calling it a triangle even though the
resulting entity is no longer a plane and has no
You see, Bill. In relativity
we are like painters. We
convert circles into
squares and spheres
into cubes at the stroke
of a brush. Nothin' to it!
Gosh, Dr. Luke!
Are those the
brushes you use
in relativity?


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008