Adapted for the Internet from:Why God Doesn't Exist |

Riemann's warped triangle |

Fig. 1 Plain stupid: Relativistic triangle angles |

Euclid defined a triangle as a plane having three angles. Riemann’s triangle has neither of these two properties. It is not a plane and certainly has no angles. An angle is by definition circumscribed to planes. |

Fig. 2 The warped circles of relativitys |

Fig. 1 Crazy Al tottering on a hotdog |

Fig. 3 Crazy Al's warped diameter: π < π |

Thank God we patched that hole in the mathematical Universe with a Riemann Triangle last night, Bill. Otherwise, the sun would shine through and we wouldn’t be able to get any sleep. |

Euclid defined a circle as a plane. In the religion of relativity,a diameter apparently takes the form of the substrate the circle sits on. The mathematicians place a pancake on a ball and continue calling it a circle. This is how relativists end up with curved diameters and dimensions. Actually, they are not even talking about a straight line, but about distance traveled (geodesic). Euclid’s diameter is not a rectilinear path. It was never intended to be an itinerary. The original diameter was a static line that bisected (cut in half) a (2-D) circle (i.e., a ‘flat’ cross-section of a sphere). Al’s diameter is an attribute of a 3-D figure. The warped diameter of Mathematical Physics is a ‘dynamic’ property of the ‘curved’ surface of a sphere. Euclid’s diameter is a straight line on a flat plane that cuts a |

sphere. Al’s diameter is an arc, the motion along the surface of a sphere. The diameter ofMathe-matical Physics runs perpendicular to the original diameter devised by the Greeks. In order to prevail with their idiotic Riemann analogy, relativists modified the original diameter to force fit the mathematical ‘geodesic’ into the picture. It is by introducing motion in lieu of a static line that Al’s boys ended up with the ludicrous notion that π is a variable! |

You cannot determine the shape of the enormous object you’re standing on by measuring a tiny region of it. Eratosthenes ‘assumed’ the Earthwas spherical, measured a region, and estimated the size of the sphere. He did not determine that the Earth was spherical by taking a measurement. If the Earth happened to have the shape of a hotdog, Eratosthenes's calculations would have been worthless. The idiots at WMAP have not learned this basic lesson. They believe that their measurements prove that the Universe in which they live is flat. |

According to relativity, a Flatlander measuring concentric circles on a sphere realizes that the diameter increases faster than its circumference (i.e., π is not a constant). The 3-D idiot of Mathematics boasts that a 2-D Flatlander can infer from this experiment that there must be a 3rd dimension. Pursuant to this method, relativists extrapolate and claim that they can infer the existence of a 4th dimension by taking measurements of space. That's what the morons at WMAP spend your tax dollars on. The root of the problem with the relativistic argument is that the mathematicians use their definitions inconsistently. Euclid defined a diameter as a straight line on a plane figure known as circle. The relativistic ‘diameter’ is a curve, an arc along the surface of a solid known as a sphere. Relativists confuse the straight line of Physics (static figure) with the geodesic of Mathematics (itinerary). The static line of Physics is a photograph. The dynamic geodesic of relativity is a movie. The mathematicians are comparing apples and oranges. Nevertheless, rectilinear itineraries are surrealistic mathematical concepts. In Physics, an itinerary is a movie and it makes no sense to say that the frames comprising a movie are straight or running rectilinearly, for I ask, ‘with respect to what?’ |