Analogies cannot
help you
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    Having read the foregoing 'analogies', it should have become clear to you that none of them is rationally conceived or helps
    you visualize a four-dimensional object. Indeed, we should not need analogies to see a physical object. An analogy may help
    you understand something. It cannot help you visualize a physical object. To see an object you should need only your eyes.
    If, as the mathematicians allege, the Universe has a large-scale ‘structure,’  the prosecutor of relativity should simply imagine
    space-time from a bird’s-eye perspective and construct a mockup for the jury.

    So, now let’s return to the question we set out to answer. Is it unreasonable to demand a sculpture of space-time? Can
    relativists claim that the Universe consists of three physical dimensions (length, width, and height) and the temporal
    ‘dimension’ of time, yet be unable to imagine such a monster?

    Let me make one thing perfectly clear and state it as blunt as I can, Dr. Einstein, if you can hear me in that past you say is
    simultaneous with my present. Illustrating the structure of space-time is not merely a curiosity that may after all be worthwhile
    pursuing. An illustration is the only experiment to ‘test’ shape! Any shape! The first law of Physics regarding structure and
    shape is that, if the factory can't manufacture it, you execute the design engineers. Every one of them! And the first rule of
    scientific evidence is that a jury doesn't even begin to deliberate until the plaintiff produces the (literal) corpus delicti, the
    physical bodies. If, as relativists allege, science requires that a hypothesis be testable and falsifiable, the conspicuous
    inability to imagine, let alone illustrate space-time in effect self-falsifies GR. How are we going to carry out an experiment in
    the lab with space-time if we cannot even imagine this object?

    So far, the tailors have produced analogies, equations, and bills. Where are the emperor’s robes? Where are the structures
    necessary to do Physics? Where is Einstein’s unimaginable space-time? Where are Bohr’s vanishing point particles with
    which he constructs his atoms and relativists their curved space? Where are Hawking’s dimensionless singularities that
    allegedly form the centers of black holes? Physics is first and foremost a discipline that deals with things. Without objects,
    we have no Physics! Math, in contrast, is an irrelevant artificial sidekick that studies that part of grammar known as adverbs.
    Mathematics cannot serve as the basis of structure because the noun of necessity precedes the verb like a verb of necessity
    precedes an adverb. Relativists have yet to zero-in on the nature of the Universe because since the dawn of civilization not a
    single prosecutor has used the chalk to draw that first, thick line between a noun and a verb. Before relativists can claim that
    space-time is or isn’t an object they must first define the word object. And before they can fall back on analogies, they must
    begin by defining the word motion. If our discussion is to be consistent, we must begin by getting the ground rules (i.e., the
    scientific method) straight.
The reason I can’t see space-time
is that I lost my faithful guide dog,
Hawk Eyes. Will you be so kind as
to donate a few bucks so that I can
find him again?


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008