If the obvious doesn't do it...

    The most efficient strategy to use when criticizing a theory is to concentrate your attack on what is patently
    irrational. If the extreme case does not strike a chord with your audience, you might as well move on.

    So? What is the main proposal of General Relativity? What is irrational about it?

    Big Bang is irrational

    Perhaps the most popular of all the theories that have emanated out of General Relativity is Big Bang, a
    cosmic theory of the origin of the Universe. Relativists believe that the Universe had a beginning some
    13.7 billion years ago in a self-generated  explosion. Theorists claim that experiments and observations
    have shown that the Universe is still expanding and that it will continue to do so for billions of years. The
    astronomers who subscribe to Einstein's theories allege that they have verified that the entire cosmos
    -- space included -- is blowing up before their very eyes. The stars and galaxies are running away from
    us as if we were at the center of the Universe. They now rewind this cosmic tape and conclude that stars
    and galaxies were closer together in the past. When the researchers rewind the tape all the way to the
    start, they end up with a single ball -- actually, more like a dot -- they call the Big Bang, the moment and
    place when time and where space began. This is their logic. This is the reasoning relativists followed to
    come up with the Big Bang.

    In essence, Big Bang is Creationism... but without God. That's why fundamentalist pastors like William
    Lane Craig insinuate that relativists deceive the public by leaving God out of the picture. Relativists
    respond by alleging that the equations only take the entire theory as far as a few gazillionths of seconds
    after the explosion. What happened before this moment is outside the bounds of General Relativity
    equations and is pure speculation.

    The modest question a rational person wants answered by a relativist is, "What encapsulates and
    contains the Universe?" What did the initial Big Bang Ball push up against in its expansion? What is
    spacetime pushing up against in its present expansion?
General Relativity

Big Bang Creationism
Big Bang  

    Relativists usually give you one of two answers, actually, excuses. The first one is that these are unscientific
    questions. They are illegal questions. The inquiry is beyond the purview of science because researchers have
    no way of verifying through an experiment what could possibly lie outside the boundary of the Universe. The
    other popular reply is that it is an irrational question. It is like asking, "What's north of the North Pole?"

    Well, this second one is easy to address. North of the North Pole is what we call space. In fact, space is
    south of the South Pole, east of the East Pole, and west of the West Pole. Space surrounds the entire
    Earth and every bit of matter in the Universe. We can't say the same thing about spacetime, Big Bang,
    the Universe, or whatever relativists want to call it because spacetime, Big Bang and the Universe all
    INCLUDE space. Therefore, the mathematician can't say that space surrounds space.

    Now we can address their first defense. In Science, we don't prove what is outside of the Universe with an
    experiment. This is strictly a qualitative, conceptual issue, and here we have the contradiction right there in
    front of us, staring at us in the face. There is no need to invoke Math or claim ignorance. Relativists claim that
    there are many universes like ours in each of which you live simultaneoulsy, and that these parallel universes
    are all interconnected by wormholes. WHAT separates these universes from one another? What physical
    object must the wormhole perforate to get from one universe to the other? Is the wormhole a standalone
    physical object or is it a hole through some kind of medium like for instance a rabbit hole?

    Again, the mathematician cannot continue to say that the wormhole is a tunnel through space because each
    universe already includes space within it. Space is the skin of each ball. If all these alleged universes share
    the same space, we are back to our standard Single Universe and the multiverse proposal dies a sudden
UCLA's Ned Wright illustrates General Relativity's Expanding Universe Theory
with two
balloons. The balloon itself represents space. The tiny lines and marks represent
the galaxies. As the balloon (space) expands, it pushes the galaxies apart.
The Universe according to General Relativity

Relativists claim that there was an explosion almost 14 billion years ago that brought space,
time and matter into existence. The question is what was outside of this initial ball. What
gave contour to spacetime? What did Big Bang push up against in its expansion?
In other words, what's the black stuff that surrounds the horizontal drinking glass (below)
relativists illustrate if the glass contains and includes time, matter AND space?
The mathemagicians can't tell you what lies outside of spacetime, but then they also
tell you with certainty that there are parallel universes and that they will travel to one
through a wormhole some day.

    A theoretician may reply that he doesn't know or can't even imagine what surrounds spacetime or what
    came before the Big Bang. He doesn't like these kinds of questions because he will never be able to rationalize
    an answer. He would rather talk about equations and about what he 'proved' to his peers through experiments.
    What then should we do next?

    One popular celebrity, Neil de Grasse Tyson, gives us the answer. He says that his colleagues should simply shut
    their fat mouths rather than flaunt their ignorance. We agree.

    Solution to the dilemma

    The question of the origin of the Universe actually has a very down-to-earth solution. It is a no-brainer that
    summarily destroys the argument of General Relativity. We need no Math to resolve the issue before us. It is
    strictly  a conceptual matter. We begin by defining the two strategic terms that we will need to make our
    simple case: object and space.

    ..........something: that which has shape (thing, anything, object, body, substance, entity, medium)

    ..........nothing: that which does not have shape (syn: space, vacuum, void, emptiness, zero)

    Now that we have defined these strategic words, we can use them consistently (i.e., scientifically) to rationalize
    our argument. Something and nothing are antonyms. If something is that which has shape, nothing is that which

    We cannot imagine let alone explain how nothing can spontaneously become something. How can the vacuum
    acquire length, width an height surreptitiously? This would indeed require magic, and even in that case we
    would  not be able to conceptualize how nothing became something IN ZERO TIME! The mathemagicians are
    saying that there was absolutely nothing in one frame of the Universal Film and then something (length, width
    and height) in  the next one.

    Space is a synonym of nothing. This means that it is not something as alleged by Relativity. Space is not a
    physical object with boundaries and surface. Space has no shape, perimeter, surface, borders, or boundaries.
    Space is not made of anything, whether virtual particles, excited fields, or sizzling energy. None of these
    proposals qualifies as a physical object for the purposes of Physics according to the forgoing definition of
    something. The onus is on the skeptic and devil's advocate to define these terms scientifically in the alternative.
    Space  is nothing BY DEFINITION. Not even almighty God can escape space because He would have literally
    nothing to cross. Space is the largest prison never built!

    Therefore, matter could not have been created (as traditional religions hold) nor did it create itself (as           
    General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics hold). Atoms have always been there. If we rewind the Universal
    Tape we would find that yesterday there were atoms, the day before yesterday there were atoms, and the day
    before that there were also atoms. We simply cannot imagine or rationally explain how nothing spontaneously
    acquires length, width, and height and morphs into something. No one can even imagine such a monster. There
    was no beginning and there will be no end. Matter is eternal in both 'directions of time'. The Universe is the only
    imaginable perpetual system because it is the only conceivable closed system.
How do we conceptualize a rabbit
appearing spontaneously in zero
time? By what physical mechanism
does nothing suddenly acquire
length, width and height without
any motion? Please explain the
process step by step.
The relativistic multiverse
General Relativity states that...

...a wormhole is a tube of space that connects
two spaces.
Black Hole
Is a wormhole like a rabbit hole:
a cavity through the earth?

Or is a wormhole a standalone
object like a test tube which itself is
enveloped by space or whatever?
If all universes share a single space,
there is only one universe.
Otherwise, relativists have to identify
the medium the wormhole traverses.
What's the black stuff that surrounds
each universe in the picture at right?
Therefore, the question remains:

What entity or thing separates one universe
from the other? You can't say "space" because
space is already contained within each universe.

This is not an issue we prove with an experiment
or through observation. This is strictly a conceptual
issue. We can't verify the relativistic assertion with
an experiment or observation until we understand
what it is that we're looking for!
The Big Question of General Relativity
The problem is that Einstein's spacetime ball
includes time, matter, light and SPACE! In his
proposal space is the rubbery skin of the balloon.

The question then is: What's the black stuff on
the outside of the ball? What gives shape to
spacetime? What is the Universe pushing up
against in its expansion?
Here we have two parallel universes. If each
of the two contains matter, time, energy and,
especially, SPACE, what is the black stuff
that separates one from the other and gives
shape to each? If you reply "SPACE", then
we're back to a single universe.
And here, we have the same two universes
interconnected by a wormhole. A hole is
the absence of matter in a medium.
If SPACE is nothing, we have a hole
through nothing. The proposal of
General Relativity is a surrealistic
concoction: nothing through nothing!
In the alternative, the mathemagicians
have to tell you... WHAT is space.

Space.com wonders about how big space is'
and what it contains, but never defines the
term. And if, as Space.com alleges, space
is 'big', clearly the theoreticians are referring
to some sort of object. Only objects
can be said to be 'big'. If so, all that the
proponent has to do is illustrate and
point to it.


Nila and Bill      


Mathematical Physics      
Rope Hypothesis    
Ye Olde You Stupid Relativist
There's no such thing as a black hole
What is Physics really about?

Bill's papers  or find them @  Academia
To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:

Rational Science