Thursday, April 22, 2010

Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap, Part II

Part I, II, III


In Part I, I wrote that the requirement of a time dimension in Einstein's physics is absurd because a time dimension makes motion impossible. In this post, I will argue that the universe is necessarily discrete. Therefore, the use of continuous structures in Einstein's physics is pure crackpottery.

Why Is the Universe Discrete?

The short answer is that a continuous universe (the opposite of a discrete universe) leads to an infinite regress. Why? Because continuity implies infinite divisibility, as simple as that. The last time I said this (see Sitting on a Mountain of Crap, Wasting Time), some anonymous coward from Stanford University (you know who you are) replied that I did not know what continuity meant and that it had nothing to do with infinite divisibility. I rejected his comment for both its stupidity and its cowardice. The fact is that a continuous surface is infinitely smooth by definition. An infinitely smooth surface consists of an infinite number of infinitely small areas or mini-surfaces. It does not take a genius to conclude that this crap leads to an infinite regress. So why do physicists insist on acting as if continuity were a possibility? The answer is that most physicists are gutless ass kissers who must go along with the mainstream for fear of losing their jobs or their source of funding. Some of them will even argue with a straight face that there is nothing wrong with infinity. They are wrong, of course, since it is easy to show that infinity is illogical because it leads to the conclusion that something can be both infinitely small and finite at the same time. I think the physics community may be suffering from a case of collective madness or stupidity or both.

Einstein and Continuity

It is worth noting that, not long before his death, Albert Einstein (Mr. Continuity himself) wrote to a friend, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.)

I would not say that all of modern physics is falsified by the fact that continuous structures are illogical but I would say that a huge portion of it is. For one, a discrete universe is necessarily an absolute universe because all motion is necessarily restricted to a fixed and discrete grid. Having said that, there are much simpler and irrefutable arguments against the stupid notion that only relative motion and position exist in nature. Indeed, the exact opposite is the truth. This will be the subject of my next post.

[By the way, is it any wonder that I insist that modern physics is built on a mountain of crap? The bullshit is so deep and so pervasive, it truly boggles the mind.]

See Also:

Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Physics: The Problem with Motion
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime


Cam said...

Hey, man.
Keep it coming!

Louis Savain said...


Thank you. I have just begun.


I rejected your comment one more time because it is stupid and you are still a gutless coward. I suspect you are either an ass-kissing graduate student or some crackpot professor at Stanford University. It would explain why you are so stupid and so gutless. Shame on Stanford.

This is my last message to you, you gutless swine. Ha, ha. See ya.

Eric said...

Even quantum physicists have said that everything is discreet.

I once told my friend that they shouldn't use PI to calculate the circumference of a table because it can't possibly be of irrational circumference. He said it made sense to use PI so that they could be more exact.

Exact what? I asked. No answer.

There are no ideal circles in the world. A round table must at some point be made of discrete particles.

Louis Savain said...


I agree. A continuous circle only exists in the feeble imagination of shit-for-brains and gutless physicists. :-D

Azathoth said...

"A continuous circle only exists in the feeble imagination of shit-for-brains and gutless physicists."

Or, y'know, folks who think knowing the perimeter of a table to better precision than any measuring instrument could give isn't worth throwing out the ease of using pi.

The notion of a discrete universe is anything but rebellious. Why is this here?

Louis Savain said...


The notion of a discrete universe is anything but rebellious. Why is this here?

You're kidding me? Continuity (the opposite of discreteness) is an ingrained assumption among physicists. Black holes, wormholes, spacetime continuum are all based on continuity and the existence of infinity. Stephen Hawking would not be famous if the physics community believed and taught that the universe is discrete.

PS. I don't like you, Azathoth, whoever you are. You are not only an anonymous coward, you can't seem to get your facts straight, as several of your comments on my blog have shown. Stop being so disingenuous. Otherwise, I will reject your comments, man.

Anonymous said...

I think you guys have it backwards. Physicists believe it is discrete, that IS the problem. A black hole for example is a perfect example of this. It is impossible because the derivation is 0 for that space-time continuity at that point.
So they made it infinitely small and discrete.

The universe is continuous and that's that. It's only when you start measuring things with clocks, seconds, planck time and whatnot that it Appears to be discrete. Discretization is a side-product of the mind and our categorizing brain, nothing more.

A perfect circle is just that, a circle that is mathematically defined as a function. It's never meant to be a model of a circle of sand-grains. The sand grain circle approximates the other one.

You should understand that it is continuous by the very fact that PI is an approximation based on a ratio, not an actual value.