Do physicists believe that Einstein’s theory is flawed? If so, why?

Two clarifications are in order.

1. A mathematical ‘physicist’ is not a physicist. A mathematical ‘physicist’ is exactly the opposite of a physicist. A mathematical ‘physicist’ is simply a mathematician who describes behavior with equations. A genuine physicist is someone who explains mechanisms and causes.

In fact, ALL, absolutely ALL explanations that mathematical ‘physicists’ provide for the invisible, intangible workings of the Universe are irrational, from black holes to Big Bang creationism to inexistent dark matter and particles at two places at once.

Non-physicist Max Born opined once that physics is becoming more and more abstract. What mathematician Born didn’t realize is that abstract is the opposite of physical. Physicists suggest that mathematical ‘physicist’ should be relabeled as mathematical ‘abstracist’ so that layman are not deceived or confused.

  1. A theory is not a description, mathematical or otherwise. A theory is an explanation. A physicist is someone who can explain a mechanism, especially, of phenomena such as magnetism or gravity that are mediated by invisible, intangible objects. To theorize that there are no physical mediators involved in such phenomena is to propose black magic: action at a distance.



Einstein discovered an equation: a mathematical description. Together with other non-physicists such as Lorentz, Poincare, and Minkowski, they converged on an irrational theory [explanation, physical interpretation, mechanism]: that gravity is caused by the bending of a mathematical concept they dubbed spacetime. This ‘physical’ interpretation was gradually accepted by the mathematical establishment because it was a departure from Newton’s unworkable discrete particle hypothesis.

Spacetime is a popular euphemism among non-physicists that stands for ‘four number lines’… which mathematicians misleadingly call ‘dimensions’ or ‘coordinates’.

“…one can describe the position of a point in space by three numbers, or coordinates. For instance, one can say that a point in a room is seven feet from one wall, three feet from another, and five feet above the floor. Or one could specify that a point was at a certain latitude and longitude and a certain height above sea level. One is free to use any three suitable coordinates… in relativity, one could use a new time coordinate…”

  1. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (1988).

In other words, a mathematician is someone who confuses the number lines of Mathematics with the coordinates, dimensions, and vectors of Physics. See: Why is time defined as a dimension?

Mathematician Hawking indiscriminately bunched the coordinates of Physics known as latitude and longitude together with the dimension of height and the mathematical number line known as time. To a non-physicist it is all the same because they are talking about number ‘lines’.

Indeed, had mathematician Hawking looked up the mathematical definitions of dimension and coordinate, he would have found:

dimension: minimum number of coordinates…

coordinate: …one or more numbers…

Therefore, it is ludicrous for the non-physicist to attempt to visualize an object made of numbers, whether it is 4 or 3 or 2 ‘numberlined’…

“It is often helpful to think of the four coordinates of an event as specifying its position in a four-dimensional space called space-time. It is impossible to imagine a four-dimensional space.” S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (1988).

A number line has no PHYSICAL direction or perpendicularity to anything. No concept does. Love neither runs nor points in any direction. And intelligence is not orthogonal to love or to grace. The mathematical abstracist has never discovered such patently obvious facts.

A non-physicist mathematical abstracist dismisses such arguments as semantics or word salad or ‘philosophy’, but then why did he even attempt to do ‘philosophy’? Why didn’t he leave it at math and equations and be done with it?

I’ll tell you why. If he didn’t do ‘semantics’ or ‘philosophy’ and EXPLAIN the cause of gravity, his equation would be meaningless! What does it matter if the mathematician has the right equation because he measured the object he can see perfectly well, but the invisible mediator he is speculating on is actually a torquing, stretched bed spring rather than a shower of bullets?

Yet when you question the rationality of his proposal – the bending of the concept spacetime’… i.e., his theory of how gravity works – the mathematician dismisses your objection as word wizardry and accuses you of doing ‘philosophy’ or ‘ontology’ or ‘metaphysics’ or something like that.


Conclusions: Einstein and his fellow medal-winning non-physicists at the Math Club never proposed a rational theory (explanation) for gravity. The physical interpretation that General Relativity still provides for gravity to this day is bunk. Gravity is not the bending of an unimaginable 4D concept made of mutually perpendicular number lines.

So yes, genuine physicists summarily declare, not that Einstein’s theory is flawed, but that it is irrational. Physics is a branch of Science and Science only includes rational explanations.




Author: billg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *