Issues analysis
Einstein's Potemkin villages
June 16, 2008
Fred Hutchison, RenewAmerica analyst

Albert Einstein (1879–1955) was a philosophical pantheist, and his theory of general relativity is based upon pantheistic assumptions that rule out a transcendent creator God. Einstein's cosmology has a baleful influence on Western moral culture because it conveys the idea that everything is relative and nothing is absolute. Some Christians of liberal theology have become pantheists and moral relativists as a result of Einstein's influence.

Progressive president Woodrow Wilson pointed out that the Constitution was written in the mechanistic age of Newton, and that we are now living in Einstein's relativistic world. He concluded that judges should reinterpret the Constitution to make it "organic," relativistic and relevant to the needs of the moment. Bad science can lead to bad law and bad theology.

A relative cosmos is philosophically and mathematically impossible. Einstein's friend, Kurt Godel (1906–1978), a world-class mathematician, proved that it is mathematically impossible to construct a closed system in which every variable is relative to every other variable. Einstein's theories are based upon mathematical formulas, but Professor Godel would have given him an F in post-doctoral mathematics.

Potemkin's illusion

Christians need not throw out their transcendent creator God in order to bow down before Einstein, the putative god of science. Judges need not adopt woozy ideas of organic and relativistic law to accommodate Einstein. Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of "Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them.

Grigori Potemkin (1739–1791) was a general-field marshal, Russian statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress.

This incident reminds me of the story of Eleanor Roosevelt's Moscow tour guide who showed her the living quarters of communist party bosses and claimed that these were the apartments of the average Russian worker. The incredibly gullible first lady was delighted. Like Catherine, the sentimental Eleanor was prone to wishful thinking and was easily deceived.

Romantic physics and pretty pictures

What has all this to do with Einstein? The science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks, they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages.

A Potemkin village is a pretty picture to fool the gullible romantic. Einstein was romantically infatuated with pretty pictures. He deliberately sought theories that were aesthetically beautiful in their harmony, symmetry, and simplicity. He romantically believed something akin to Keats' famous poetic summation: "Beauty is truth and truth, beauty." This is pure romanticism. I thought science was hard-headed stuff, not romantic fluff. Silly me.

Einstein used blackboard mathematics to develop the pretty pictures that became the new physics of a romantic age. That is why he is beloved by modernists who thrill to the romance of his new cosmos. As we shall see, no such cosmos exists.

Relativity is self-refuting

D. & S. Birks sent me a paper titled "Relativity is Self-Refuting." This paper helped me to understand one of Einstein's Potemkin villages that I was not aware of in my prior essays. My thanks to the Birkses for giving me permission to dig ideas from their paper. Readers interested only in my latest insights about Einstein and in recommended reading relevant to the Potemkin villages of science: scroll down to "The relativism of falling objects" and read to the end.

NASA and MIT ignores Einstein in practice

As a young science buff, I thought that Einstein's theory of gravity offered a reasonable explanation for why the planets rotate around the sun, but did not offer an adequate explanation of why an apple falls straight down. I had a lengthy e-mail discussion about these things with a physicist devoted to Einstein, who works at the prestigious Massachusetts institute of Technology (MIT). I subsequently concluded that Einstein has nothing worthwhile to say about either the rotation of planets or the fall of apples.

Years ago, after reading science writers who explicated Einstein's theories, I believed that the mass of the sun creates a "warp in the space-time continuum." As a result of this warp, I envisioned that a vortex in space is created that resembles the swirl of water as it washes down the drain. I assumed that a vortex of this kind caused planetary rotation. I concluded that NASA must be using Einstein's mathematics for calculating the orbit of a satellite, but using Newton's mathematics for calculating the speed and trajectory of a satellite after it breaks free of orbit and falls to earth. The falling space module is subject to the same Newtonian laws of gravity as a falling apple.

I was wrong. NASA does not use Einstein for orbiting satellites or for falling space modules. My scientist friend from MIT unwittingly set me straight.

Yet — although Einstein is not practically used in either of these cases — the science establishment continues to give public credit to Einstein for both! Potemkin villages!

Why is junk science in the school text books?

I believed that the illustration of balls rolling on a distorted surface (or a rubber bed) given in science text books can explain a vortex. However, it seemed obvious that the "rubber bed" cannot explain why an apple falls straight down. My friend from MIT said that the rubber bed illustration is to be disregarded. He also rebuked me for using the phrase "a warp in the space-time continuum." If the rubber bed and the warp in space-time is gruffly rebuked by an Einstein expert, why are these concepts included in the science text books? Are these concepts mere junk science to fool the students?

There is a huge gap between applied physics and theoretical physics, yet the science establishment is making a concerted attempt to conceal that gap from the public. Why conceal it? What would be wrong with telling the public that at present, applied science is one thing and theoretical science is another thing? Students would accept the truth.

Why does an apple fall straight down?

I demanded an explanation from the man from MIT as to why an apple falls straight down. He responded that he could answer me with mathematics, but could not answer me in so many words.

I told him that Einstein said that every valid scientific theory must be reducible to simple concepts and images that a child can understand. I asked him if he agreed with Einstein on this. No answer. I asked him to explain the falling apple to me as if he was Einstein and I was a child. No answer. He ignored these queries and proceeded to give his mathematical answer.

A poor substitute for an answer

He started with the math of Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1737). Then he built a mathematical bridge between Newton's math and Einstein's math to demonstrate how Einstein can be made to approximate Newton.

Notice how he started with Newton and used Newton to prove Einstein. Why? Newton's logic is self-evident, but Einstein's logic is counter-intuitive. Newton's math tells us how an apple falls and shows us how to calculate the speed, acceleration, and trajectory of a falling apple. Einstein's relativity cannot explain the fall of an apple, and his math is of no practical use. The scientists can only pretend to use Einstein to compute the trajectory, velocity, and acceleration of the apple by riding on the back of Newton.

Newton's math is one thing, Einstein's math is a second thing, and the math of the bridge between the two is a third thing. The bridge had nothing in common with Newton's math or Einstein's math. Where does the mathematical bridge come from? It comes from the science establishment. The science project to build the bridge is what Thomas Kuhn called "puzzle solving."

Puzzle Solving Inc.

Science historian Thomas Kuhn (1922–1996) explained in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that the "normal science" of the establishment consists of a special kind of "puzzle solving." The "prevailing paradigm" is the model in favor with the science establishment. This model always has "anomalies." An anomaly is a fact that contradicts the model.

Rejecting a favorite model because it disagrees with the facts is unthinkable to the establishment. The establishment only throws out models they don't like. All models have anomalies, so there is always grounds for dismissing an unpopular model.

The easiest thing to do is to sweep an anomaly of a popular model under the rug. However, the establishment cannot forever get away with sweeping anomalies under the rug. They are eventually obliged to reconcile the troublesome facts with the model. A hired puzzle solver can solve the problem by tweaking the model, by reinterpreting the annoying fact, or by building a bridge between the model and the fact.

According to Kuhn, this kind of puzzle solving is "normal science," in that it absorbs a big proportion of the energies of professional scientists who are on the staff of large science institutions. Wasted funds? Wasted lives? Not entirely. Scientists must build models. They must test their models with facts. Anomalies must be analyzed.

Kuhn discovered that late in the life cycle of an aging model, there invariably comes a time when most of the energies of the science establishment is spent in defensive puzzle solving. The model becomes a tangled mass of defenses against anomalies.

Instead of a pretty Potemkin village, the model becomes an unsightly ruin. The unsightly patches in the holes do not quite work. The added wings and appendages are ad hoc jerry-built eyesores, or are done in architectural styles that clash with the original style. The model becomes aesthetically repulsive and loses its romantic panache.

A lot of work is sunk into these maladroit repairs and additions. For example, some over-paid and over-educated scientist must have gone half blind to create the mathematical bridge I studied. An expensive waste of time to save face for Einstein? A sop to people like me who demand explanations? Well, it was a good sop. It almost worked.

A sop for Cerberus

In Greek mythology, Cerberus was the three-headed watchdog of Hades. Aeneas got past Cerberus by throwing a honey cake to him. The rituals of a Greek funeral once involved the payment of two bribes: the placement of a coin under the tongue of the deceased as a bribe to Charon, the boatman on the River Styx, and the placement of a honey cake into the hand of the deceased. The honey cake had a coin in it as a bribe for Cerberus. Thus, the expression "a sop for Cerberus."

The scientist threw a mathematical brain teaser to me hoping I would exhaust myself with the math problem and forget about my question — which I very nearly did. He was like Aeneas throwing a sop to Cerberus — so he could slip past the wild dog and disappear into the science underworld.

I prefer to think of myself as a bulldog, rather than the scary three-headed Cerberus. So let us then say that the scientist threw a bone to a bulldog, hoping that the pesky mutt would get obsessed with worrying that the bone and forget about worrying his trouser leg. Like a good bulldog, I gave that bone hell. However, I couldn't shake the suspicion that the bone was a diversion and that I had been fooled.

Magic Tricks

I determined that the mathematical bridge I was shown can increasingly approximate Newton. The more iterations you compute, the closer you get to Newton. However, you can never quite reach Newton. The bridge can never quite span the gap. The two can never touch. Why not? Because the structure of the math in the bridge is alien to Newton's math. The bridge is an artificial construct and an illusion. It is a bone to fool the bulldogs.

I was almost fooled. But lest I be overly embarrassed, many scientists are fooled by their own trick.

An audience cannot tell how a magic trick was done because the magician misdirects their attention. How do the MIT magicians misdirect one who asks inconvenient questions? By distracting him with entertaining mathematics while ignoring the issue posed.

The witch doctor believes his own tricks

The creepy part of this story is that the scientists often come to believe that their diversion is an authentic answer. My MIT friend really believed he had answered my question. Witch doctors get creepy when they start to believe in their own tricks. The scientists have been obsessing so long with their puzzle-solving math tricks that they think that their magic tricks are real magic.

One aspect of this creepy phenomenon is when the scientists confuse mimicking science with understanding science. The witch doctors are slightly different. They mimic events in hunting and fighting in their magic incantations in order to control events.

Mimicking nature vs. understanding nature

Scientists truly and deeply understand the prevailing paradigm of their institutions and the mathematics behind it. The reason they understand the paradigm so thoroughly is that it was created by men. Men can understand works produced by the minds of men. Einstein was a man, not God. That is precisely why Einstein is understandable by men, and some men are at home with Einstein.

There is a difference between understanding a model and understanding nature. The model was made by men, and nature was made by God. One might perfectly understand the model and know nothing about the fabric of nature that God created. We can know all about the thoughts and works of a man, but when it comes to God's creation, "His ways are past finding out" (Romans 11:33). Contrary to the proud claims of science, there are limits to what mortal man can know.

One might use a model to accurately predict an event in nature, yet not understand the law of nature producing the phenomenon. The model works because it was designed to mimic nature.

The reader might protest that a model is valid if it is tested and proven to predict events governed by natural laws. Yes, we must test a model to prove its worth, but we should not go too far in our claims about what we understand as a result.

A successful model can somewhat predict selected natural events because it is deliberately rigged to mimic the patterns of nature. Rich Little was able to mimic the idiosyncrasies of public figures to get a laugh, but that does not mean he understood these personages. We might learn a thing or two from his impersonations, but must be modest in our claims about what they explain about the personality and psychology of the person mimicked.

Scientists understand the structure of their model and patterns in the data. They understand what applications are practicable and what the anomalies are. They are ingenious in the patchwork that keeps their clunky models going. They are like the Apollo 13 astronauts who used many make-shift ad-hoc fixes to keep their failing ship in service as they limped back to earth.

The astronauts were swashbuckling heroes in their improvisational little world, but they are as children amidst the profound mysteries of the creation. Pascal gazed up into the stars and said, "I am terrified by the silence of these infinite spaces."

The illusion of certitude

No such wonder at divine mysteries is possible for him who has the illusion of certitude. As a scientist gains mastery of a model, his skill and confidence are gradually transformed into certitude. He is now king of a small niche of knowledge made by man. As he uses the model to study the outside world, his certitude in understanding the model is transposed into a certitude of understanding the world. All mystery vanishes because he thinks he knows what is out there. The price of false certitude is to be cut off from reality. Building sand castles is fun, but one is cut off from reality when one tries to live in them.

Critiquing the model requires one to stand outside the model and look in upon it. We must look at the model from above as God looks at us. In this way, we can view the whole of the model in perspective. In contrast, looking at the world from inside the model limits one to a very narrow range of view and a distorted quality of sight.

If the scientist has the illusion of certitude, he has spent so much time thinking inside the model and looking out from the model, he loses the ability to stand outside the model and look in. Precisely because I am a scientific outsider, I was able to discover flaws in Einstein's model. My scientist friend was incapable of understanding the flaws I discovered because he is a scientific insider with the illusion of certitude. He was incapable of standing outside the model with me and observing the flaws I was seeing.

As I tried to communicate from outside the model with a man who is trapped inside the model, I had the strange feeling of being a man standing on land trying to talk to someone who is under water. I could see things that had gone wrong in his watery world that he could not see.

It becomes clear why scientists must learn to accept criticism from those outside their field of expertise. Tragically, some departments of science fiercely oppose such criticism. Kuhn said that this has happened many times in the history of science, as institutions defended their aging and failing models.

For example, consider the little known fact that most of the opposition to Galileo came from the science establishment in the universities because they were committed to Aristotle's earth-centered cosmos — which was an aging and failing paradigm. Most of Galileo's support came from certain religious orders of the Catholic church. The universities had enough political clout with the Vatican to bring Galileo to trial. Kuhn noted that the end game in many of the battles over opposing scientific models is a political and propaganda war.

The academic departments of physics, evolutionary biology, and climate science are particularly hostile to criticism from those outside their field and from those in the field who don't agree with the prevailing paradigm. Why? The defenders of their aging and declining models have remarkably intense illusions of certitude. When one is dead-certain about his model, those who doubt it come across as cranks, troglodytes, and bulldogs chewing on the professor's pant legs.

Why do planetary bodies revolve?

As previously mentioned, I used to think that planetary orbits were vortices created by Einstein's "warp in the space-time continuum." After dismissing the vortices and warps, my friend plainly said that planets orbit in ovals, and he gave me the series of formulas that MIT uses to compute orbits.

This bone had meat on it, and I tore into it like a greedy bulldog. All of a sudden, my eyes opened wide in shocked recognition of an half-forgotten pattern. I screamed, "Hey, these formulas sound like Kepler!!!"

You might remember Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), the Lutheran academic and astronomer who was born a quarter century after Martin Luther's death. Kepler developed three laws of planetary motion, and posited that the planets rotate in oval trajectories!!! His theory was based upon the belief that God demonstrates his perfections in the starry heavens. Newton used his mathematics of inertia and gravity to vindicate Kepler and develop useful mathematical tools to calculate orbits.

The science establishment is using Kepler and Newton to calculate planetary orbits, but gives the credit to Einstein! Potemkin villages!

How to build an imaginary universe

Einstein's gravity does not work for falling apples or for rotating planets. As noted in a prior essay, it also does not work for the gravitation of galaxies. It is much too weak a force. Using Einstein's general relativity to move galaxies is like using a tot on a tricycle to haul a heavy load of lumber.

Let's bring in the puzzle solvers. Hmmm. Suppose that many times more mass exists in galaxies than is composed by the visible stars. Our sun composes more than 99% of the mass of our solar system. But let us just assume that only 4% of the mass of galaxies consists of stars and 96% consists of other heavy things we cannot see.

Wait a minute, professor! Why make a wild speculation that reduces stars to a tiny portion of galaxies when in our own solar system, the sun is very nearly the whole thing in terms of mass and gravity? Our earth revolving around the sun is like a fly circumnavigating the Houston Astrodome.

And where, professor, did you dream up the 4% and 96% as the proportion between the mass of stars and the mass of other stuff?

Well, 96% is the percent of invisible stuff in galaxies that we need to make the math work. That is how we can make Einstein's theory of gravity work. What shall we call the stuff that composes the invisible 96%? Hmm. Let's call it "dark matter," "dark energy," and "black holes."

I like to think of this invisible stuff as the ghosts of the cosmos that haunt the dreams of the physicists.

If Einstein is right, there must be 25 times as much stuff in galaxies as what we can account for by the stars — or the galaxies would fly apart. We are told to accept on faith without evidence that dark matter, dark energy, and black holes can account for all that stuff and that it is out there in just the right amounts. After all, Einstein can't be wrong, can he? Just have faith.

Hmm. This sounds more like religion than science. But why have faith in Einstein? Because his pantheistic and symmetrical cosmos is romantically pleasing?

Scientists are searching day and night for the ghosts of the cosmos. But it is much like the search for the Loch Ness monster. Every so often, some astronomer will cry out that he has found dark matter or found a black hole. Sensational headlines. Then silence. The dark matter evaporates. Nessie the monster has gone back under water. But I saw Nessie...at least I think I saw him.

A frustrated graduate assistant dares to ask the mighty professor, "Why don't we just get rid of Einstein and save ourselves all this trouble and embarrassment?" The annoyed professor blurts, "Listen, punk, one more crack like that and you are barred from this sacred observatory, built for exploring Einstein's world of symmetry, harmony, and beauty."

I used to consider "dark matter" and "black holes" as simply plug figures to make Einstein's math work. But this is not a mere case of petty cheating. Now I realize that it is the creation of an imaginary universe — 96% of it being dreamed up. This is not a Potemkin village. It is a Potemkin galaxy. All these stage illusions were developed so that scientists can live happily ever after in Einstein's fantasy cosmos! General Potemkin would have blushed at such a fantastic cosmic swindle.

I would like some builder to tell me the weight of a Hollywood false front and the weight of a house. I am curious if the weight of the false front would be 4% of the weight of the house. Then the part of a house we don't see would be 96% of the stuff — just like Einstein's Potemkin universe.

Einstein violates his own principles

Up until now, we have been talking about Einstein's theory of general relativity. Now let us turn to Einstein's theory of special relativity.

Recall the twin's paradox. One twin blasts off from the earth in a space ship, and the other twin remains on earth. According to Einstein, the twin on earth ages faster. But why must it be the twin on earth that ages faster? Why can't it be the twin in the space ship that ages faster? According to Einstein's special relativity, it would be equally valid to say that the earth blasted off from the space ship as to say that the space ship blasts off from earth. When Einstein arbitrarily claimed that the twin on earth ages faster, he contradicted his own principle.

My friend at MIT gave me a mathematical solution to cure the twins paradox, but he violated Einstein's principles of special relativity in the starting assumptions of his math. He assumed that the earth represents a fixed position as the "inertial plane" from which a space ship was launched. This is Newton's world. According to Einstein there is no such fixed position. In Einstein's world, the earth's position is relative to the space ship, just as the ship's position is relative to the earth.

This math solution is another attempt to use Newton to prove Einstein. This is the same kind of mistake my friend made when he computed planetary orbits and passed off Kepler and Newton as Einstein.

The relativism of falling objects

Imagine yourself riding upon a train and a baseball falls off a shelf. It falls six feet and you catch it in your hand. Drop the same ball out the train window six feet above a man standing on the ground. If the train is moving 50 miles an hour, the ball would be falling too fast for him to catch it without hurting his hand. A major league catcher with a catcher's mitt could catch it without injury. But if the train were going 150 miles an hour, he probably could not catch it, and even if he did, he would injure his hand, in spite of his mitt. As the ball is dropped out of the train window, the velocity of the train is added to the ball's velocity as a falling body.

When the ball falls inside the train, it appears to fall straight down. When the ball is dropped outside the window it appears to an observer outside the train to have a curved trajectory. It appears to curve in the direction that the train is moving. The amount of time it takes to fall six feet is the about the same inside and outside the train (allowing for a minor adjustment for wind resistance outside the train). However, the curved trajectory as seen outside the train is a greater distance than the straight fall inside the train. Since the ball outside the train moves a greater distance in the same amount of time, it has a greater velocity.

However, when you drop an object from a train window and watch from the window, it appears to fall straight down. If a train had glass sides and the object was dropped inside the train, a motion picture photographer outside the train would record a falling object with a curving trajectory.

Twin universes?

When the ball is dropped inside the train, do two universes come into being, with a ball falling straight down in Universe A (as viewed inside the train) and a ball with a curving trajectory in Universe B (as viewed outside the train)? We get the same impression of a twin universe when the ball is dropped outside the train window. Can we conclude that two balls and two separate universes exist?

Of course not. But why not? Because we can look down on the problem in our mind's eye as God looks down upon us. It is clear to us that there is one universe, one train, one falling ball, but two velocities and two trajectories in relation to the two men who are differently positioned in relation to the train.

A twin universe vs. a warped universe

But what about a man with brain damage, who is missing the faculty of looking down on a system from above? He would be forced to make one of two conclusions: (A) there are twin universes, or (B) there is an imaginary universe in which time, space, and relative movement are warped so that they don't split apart, but stay glued to each other.

Einstein insisted that there is no God who looks down from outside the universe. He was a Pantheist and claimed that "god" is woven into the fabric of the universe. Therefore, scientists who learn to think only within Einstein's model can gradually lose their capacity to look at the model from the outside. The professors forbid their students to use a perspective from outside the model to solve a problem. By the time they become credentialed physicists, they have lived within Einstein's model so long that they are no longer able to look at it from above and from the outside the model. Their impaired mental capacities are not unlike brain damage.

Some of these intelligent, but mentally crippled, scientists realize that Einstein's model doesn't work for a solitary universe. Therefore, they posit that multiple universes exist. This idea is called "string theory." If a string theorist was on the train dropping baseballs, he would choose answer A and assume that there are two baseballs, two trains, and two universes.

Supposing a scientist ruled out the possibility of looking down at the problem of baseballs and trains from God's point of view, but adamantly insisted that there was one baseball, one train, and one cosmos. This was Einstein's choice.

Answer A involves two universes that are both coherent by their own internal logic. Answer B involves one badly warped and distorted universe that is not internally coherent. The latter is Einstein's cosmos.

What was Einstein's gambit to integrate his cosmos to make it more coherent? How can he create a coherent model of the train, the baseball, the man inside the train, and the man outside the train? It is impossible to weave together a logically coherent system of relative factors without reference to an absolute factor. Einstein insisted upon an absolute factor inside the system. His pantheism forbade him to find an absolute outside the closed system of the cosmos. Notice the powerful links between science and theology?

The collapse of an imaginary cosmos

If Einstein were working on the problem of baseballs and trains, he would have chosen relative velocity as his absolute and insisted that the relative velocity was the same for the observer inside the train and outside the train. We know he would make this choice because in his Theory of General Relativity he arbitrarily declares that the speed of light is constant in every part of the universe, and moves towards you at the same velocity regardless of your relative movement. If you move towards it or move away from it, it still approaches you at the same velocity. This is exactly like saying that the falling ball inside the train has the same relative velocity as a ball that is caught with a catcher's mitt outside the train.

What Einstein is saying is nonsense. The ball is moving much faster in relation to the man outside the train. Light coming to us from galaxies that are moving away from us is in "red-shift" — that is to say, the red part of the visible spectrum with long wave lengths of light is what we see. That means that the relative speed of light is slower when it shines from a galaxy moving away from us.

We see the same phenomena with sound waves from a train. We hear a bell ringing on a train approaching us with a higher pitch than the same bell on a train going away from us. This is called "the Doppler effect." The sound waves from the bell are moving faster towards us from the approaching train, so the frequency of the waves which hit our ears are closer together producing a higher pitch. When train passes, the sound waves move more slowly towards us, the waves hit the ear hit less frequently, producing a lower pitch.

The Doppler effect applies to the movement of light! Yet our de facto brain-damaged scientists who study red-shift still insist that the speed of light is absolute, and not relative. Why? Because Einstein's imaginary cosmos would collapse if the speed of light is not absolute.

The arbitrary absolute

Is it nonsense to claim that the speed of light is absolute? Yes. Einstein had to resort to this nonsense to develop a model of the universe where the mathematics works and everything fits tightly together — and nothing exists above or outside his closed system.

Einstein's mathematician friend Kurt Godel must surely have told him that no mathematical closed system can exist without an absolute factor outside the system. Einstein obeyed Godel and dreamed up an absolute. He disobeyed Godel by placing the absolute inside the closed system. Due to this partial obedience to mathematical principles, his model sometimes seems to work and sometimes crashes.

Einstein turned the speed of light into a constant and hung his universe of relative factors upon it like limp wet clothes hanging on a stiff wire. He had to invent the wire to have something to hang the clothes upon. Time, space, mass, and energy are twisted out of shape like wet clothes, so that they can hang upon the rigid line of the speed of light. They are twisted out of shape so that they can all be connected with one another. If everything is not tightly interconnected, it all collapses into chaos or flies apart into alternate universes. Why? Because mathematical models that are not tightly interconnected collapse.

Reader, has it occurred to you that God might have created the world using principles and laws that are different from the logic of mathematical systems models? By contrast, as a blackboard theorist, the only tool Einstein had for creating a cosmos was mathematics.

All this nonsense could have been avoided if Einstein had accepted that the cosmos can only be understood from a perspective outside the cosmos — that is to say, from God's perspective. Einstein's friend, Kurt Godel, proved this mathematically. He proved that no mathematical closed system can exist apart from an independent variable outside the system. In other words, Einstein' imaginary cosmos is an impossibility according to the logic of mathematics.

Relativity is self-refuting

D. & S. Birks' paper "Relativity is Self-Refuting" developed the scenario of dropping an object from a train — which I used in this piece. Using mathematics is so simple that even I can understand it, they proved that (a) Using relative velocity as a constant is bogus, (b) Relativity is self-refuting, and (c) Einstein's cosmos can exist only in the imagination.

Must read

In addition to the Birks' paper, I recommend the following commentaries on the limitations of science:

(1) The Edge of Evolution: The search for the limits of Darwinism, by Michael Behe. The science of microbiology has gone through a revolution during the ten years since Dr. Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box. Using fresh new information, he refined his theory of intelligent design. He describes Darwinism as a three legged stool with legs of common descent, genetic mutations, and natural selection. According to the facts cited by Behe, the case for common descent has improved, but the range of possibilities for species change through mutations and natural selection has contracted. Mutations turn out to be surprisingly impotent in the grand scheme of things.

(2) The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud (and those who are fearful to do so), by Lawrence Solomon. Should we rely on scientific consensus regarding global warming? No such consensus exists. The scientists who are the most qualified to speak about global warming are the most likely to dispute what the press claims is the consensus view. The group-think of like-minded cliques has produced the putative consensus. Scientists who dare to disagree are viciously persecuted by the cliques.

(3) The Devil's Delusion, Atheism, and its Scientific Pretentions, by David Berlinski. Dr. Berlinski is a philosopher and a mathematician. He takes aim at atheists who attack theism based upon Darwinism, philosophy, and history. He effortlessly dismisses their arguments as bankrupt scientifically, philosophically, mathematically, and historically.

Berlinski has no bone to pick in the quarrel between atheism and theism because he is an agnostic. He just hates false pretenses, fraud, malice, illogical thinking, and bogus history. Berlinski is an honest man who knows what all the great philosophers and mathematicians have said, has thought deeply upon their ideas, and seemingly remembers almost everything he has read or thought. Therefore, he knows an intellectual mountebank when he hears one.

After listening to him field tough questions for an hour on TV, I rate him as one of the most intelligent men I have heard.

© Fred Hutchison

RenewAmerica analyst Fred Hutchison also writes a column for RenewAmerica.

Comments feature added August 14, 2011
 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)



They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. —Isaiah 40:31