Introduction
Here, with minimal introduction, we shall begin a detailed analysis and critique of a number of key 'theories' of modern mathematical physics. Recalling the characterization of jewish-dogmatic physics given by Johannes Stark which I quoted in the previous article, we will be identifying in these theories two main problems–
1. The mathematical physicist begins with "ideas that have arisen primarily in his own brain, or from arbitrary definitions of relationships between symbols". Those "ideas arisen in his own brain" were dogmas obtained from, or at the very least consistent with, their own background of jewish mysticism. In other words, the ultimate causes of phenomena are, in a word, determined by their jewish god– a purely abstract, mathematical god, and therefore, the ultimate causes of physical action are, to them, purely abstract and mathematical. As succinctly put by the famous jewish actress and PhD neuroscientist Mayim Bialik, "the god I believe in is the force in the universe that drives all of the phenomena that we experience as human beings; god is gravity, and god is centrifugal force and god is the answer to why everything is the way it is in the natural world." We will therefore see in the following 'theories' how jewish assumptions about their god's qualities inform their purely abstract and mathematical explanations for physical phenomena.
Considering the entire context of jewry surrounding modern physics, and the equating of God with that which "drives all of the phenomena that we experience", I don't believe it's much of a stretch to suggest that the haughty, unspoken renunciation of literal illustrations of atomic-scale phenomena has its roots in the "no graven images" commandment of the Old Testament. Ask a math physicist for a literal illustration/model of any of mother nature's secret mechanisms and you will receive a reaction that ranges from stunned bewilderment to genuine irritation.
2. Stark notes, secondly, that "Insofar as [their theories] are found to be in accord with experience, he underlines this agreement with the greatest of emphasis…" but… "If there are any experimental results available not embraced by this theory or which stand in contradiction to it, he doubts their validity or considers them so unimportant that he does not deign to mention them." This too, we shall notice in a number of their theories. Central models of reality for math phyz have been demonstrably contradicted by later discoveries in a number of ways, yet those contradictions are downplayed and reconciled with the original model by the addition of ad hoc explanatory band-aids, rather than admitting the original model proved impossible.
Framework of the critique– I'm not denying 'the data', but the interpretations
I'd also like to add at this point for the purpose of clarification to any reader who is puzzled about how I could possibly be criticizing such "well-established" theories that are "supported by so much evidence"... I am not in any way denying the raw data, so to speak, or that we have obtained through trial and error, great technical control over the phenomena in question. I can fully accept that the phenomena math phyz seeks to explain is actually occurring… fundamentally, the issue is how we qualitatively interpret the mysterious events/data that is directly observable. It is the difference between what we see vs. how we understand it. In every case that follows here, I will basically be presenting two-pronged arguments– on one hand, the mechanisms/models proposed by mathematical physics are always irrational reified abstractions-turned-objects, which alone is enough to break their theories and debunk them as unphysical, unscientific, and impossible. On the other hand, I will show, mainly in the final part of this essay (coming later) that all of the phenomena that allegedly confirms math-phyz theories can be explained in alternative ways that do not involve models founded on reification fallacies.
Now that we are refreshed about what we are looking for in these theories of math phyz, and the basic framework of my critique, let us begin… with the "beginning".
The Big Bang
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Germ Illustrated to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.