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 ‘constructing’
    solids 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
angles.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/01/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
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?