Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    One persistent issue that is routinely taken for granted during relativistic analogies is the claim that the mathematicians can infer
    structural attributes such as finiteness, size, and shape from a set of equations. For instance, the Mathematicians propose the
    ridiculous idea that an equation invoking a variable called a 'density parameter' can tell you whether the Universe is flat or infinite:

    “ the Friedmann equations yield the time evolution and geometry of the universe…
      k gives the shape of the universe… ρc is the critical density for which the geo-
      metry is flat”   [1]

    [In other words, the idiots of Mathematical Physics are attempting to 'calculate'
    whether space is flat. Perhaps they have in mind the shape of their brains.]

    Indeed, some relativists allege to have measured exactly how flat the Universe is:

    “ Microwave background measurements point to flat, infinite space…Inflation
      theory explains flat space.”   [2]

    [How can these misguided mathematicians conceive of the shape of the Universe
    if they allege that it is infinite? Relativists give lip service to ‘flat’ space, but all of the
    Universes they exhibit are finite 3D geometrical objects.]

    How can the mathematicians speculate about non-mathematical issues such as whether space-time is open or closed if they
    cannot even imagine the shape of their 4-D universe. Has it ever occurred to them that perhaps we cannot extrapolate physical
    attributes of solids to 4-D scenarios any more than we can impose 3-D attributes upon planes?

    For instance, ideal flatness is an exclusive property of the frictionless world of Flatland whereas not a single wall or table of the
    real world is perfectly smooth. Nor, for that matter, do we know of any solid that is infinite such as the lines and planes geometers
    define. Conversely, thickness is unheard of in the 1-D or in Flatland. If time is the fourth ‘dimension,’ attributes such as open,
    closed, finite, size and shape are excluded from 4-D ‘objects.’ They belong to the 3-D world of solids (and some of them to the
    2-D world of planes). These parameters cannot possibly characterize physical properties of a rolling film (i.e., an object moving
    through’ time) as ‘4-D’ space-time is alleged to be.

    If time is ‘infinite,’ surely not even a 4-D being can visualize the space-time in which he lives. The poor fellow watches a movie that
    predictably will not have a very happy ending. For example, if a cube is 3-D – has length, width and height – and we eliminate the
    structurally-irrelevant 'dimension' of time, will the cube become infinite, crooked, or open? Or, should we happen to remove the
    dimension of width from space-time, will the resulting 3-D, mathematical entity – consisting of length, height, and time – suddenly
    become infinite? [Recall that Hawking asserts that: “In relativity, there is no real distinction between the space and time coordinates,
    just as there is no real difference between any two space coordinates.”        (p. 24) [3] ] If time does not alter the finiteness of a 2-D
    circle or convert it into a solid, what makes relativists believe that time will transform a solid into a finite, unbounded, or closed 4-D
Is the Universe
closed, open, or flat?
Like the saddle on
that horse? Come on,
Captain Newt! You're
pulling my leg!


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008