Fanny mathematics

 The words "math" or "mathematics" or even "arithmetic" have traditionally conveyed the meaning of "precise", "accurate", "correct", "positive", "absolute". Two plus two is four; seven times nine is sixty-three; thirty-two divided by four equals eight. Etcetera. Precise. No deviation. Always the same. Absolute Truth.

Well, guess what? For those of you who have not heard, none of this has been true in the world of theoretical science for a very long time. Theoretical science can use theoretical mathematics to "prove" any theory it wants to prove and has been doing exactly that for quite a few generations.

The point of interest here, of course, centers around these two facts: 1) There is no tested and proven evidence whatsoever which shows the Earth to be moving; and 2) The chief "evidence" that has been used from Copernicus to today which shows a moving Earth is mathematical "evidence". In short, what the world has as primary evidence for a moving Earth is a mathematical model and nothing more.

The weakness of this mathematical model of a moving Earth is immediately obvious because one can just as easily make a mathematical model which proves a motionless Earth. This simple fact (not to mention that the motionless Earth model has constant observational experience plus repeated experiments on its side) shows that mathematics has been and can be used to prove two models which declare opposite conclusions to be true. Surely, it takes no intellectual giant to see that the math for one of these models is "funny" math.

Indeed, there can only be one right answer to the question of whether the Earth moves or not. Either the heliocentric model is correct and true or the geocentric model is correct and true. (Einstein's great contribution to "science" was to muddy up this clear, either/or choice by using mathematics to say that the motions of the heavens are all relative to where the observer is, and that we can never know the truth. And, if truth can't be known, there are no absolutes, everything is relative, and . . . the bottom line: God is not Absolute Truth and most assuredly the Bible is not His Book which contains only Absolute Truth.) In his futuristic novel 1984 (written in the '40's), George Orwell painted a graphic portrait of how mathematical or arithmetical truth could be changed and still be called truth.

The main character in the story ends up undergoing a horrible torture program. He is hooked up to a device which delivers whatever electric voltage to his body that his tormentor decrees. The tormentor holds up four fingers. "How many?", he asks. "Four." Zap, Zap, Zap. Scream, Scream, Scream. "Why?"!

"There are five fingers, not four!" So the tormentor holds up four fingers again, "how many?" "Five "

Zap, Zap, Zap. Scream, Scream, Scream.
"Why?"

"You just said 'five' to avoid pain. You still really believe there were four ...."

Suffice it to say that by the time the tormentor finished his sadistic interrogation, the subject really believed that four was five. He believed it just as much as he had believed that four was four. Truth, namely "four" (1, 2, 3, 4, or 2+2 or 3+1) had become a lie. The new truth, namely "five" had the same formula (1,2,3,4, or 2+2 or 3+1). But it was now "five".

Let's say that the thing that Orwell created in that book with his pen which changed absolute truth to a lie and an absolute lie to the truth was worked on half of the world's people and they were all brought around to believing that four times one or two plus two or three plus one equals five.

The other half of the world sticks to four as the answer. Group A manufactures cars and sends Group B five of them. Group B sends back payment for four. No problem. Five is four, so all is well.

Then Group B sends Group A four new trains. Group A sends back payment for five trains because five is four.
They do??
Sure, five is four, you see.
You mean they just count one, two, three, five?
Yeah.
What's the next number?
Six.
And six is five?
Yes. And seven is six, and so on.
So Group A just changed the name of the number, not the reality of the numbers, didn't they?
Exactly! It's possible to do that, to change the names, but it's not possible to change the reality, the truth, of the number. Different languages have different words for four and five and all the rest. But if a Frenchman or a Pakastini or a Zulu holds up four fingers when he wants four loaves of bread at a bakery in Tibet he will get four loaves because four is four no matter what word is used.
OK. What's the point? I've lost the point!
The point is, Truth can't be changed! We can take any truth and call it by another name. We can even call it a lie.
But it is only the name that changed, not the truth which is labeled or described.
All right. I think I've got it now . . . . Mathematics is just a collection or group of all kinds of specialized signs and scribblings which designate or represent other specialized things for which we have words; things such as size, weight, mass, density, speed, distance, whatever. Right?
You've got it, Vern. The problem with all this, however, lies in using mathematical symbols that represent something which somebody says is true but nobody knows is true.
Like what?
Like Outer Space and all that is involved in that concept:
Sun, moon, stars, asteroids, comets, light, heat, speed, den-sity, mass, orbits, darkness, color, gravity, space itself, etc ....
Yeah, yeah....
OK. Now, there is a hatful of facts (real truths) about all these things that mathematicians know and represent by symbols in their computations. Fine. But here's the rub, Vern: Most of their symbols represent theories and not facts.

Here is a symbol (like a 4 or 5) which represents Einstein's speed of light as the fastest anything can go. The symbol says it but nobody knows it is true. So he uses up 300 blackboards involving this symbol to prove something . . . .
... and he succeeds!
Of course! He used his own symbols, his own word meanings (as we shall see), and his own invented math. A person can "prove" anything that way.
But the truth never changed, right? I mean, the speed of light is or is not the fastest anything can go in the universe.

Suppose it is and Einstein was right on that; does that make his conclusions on other theories involving the speed of light right and true?
Not at all, and for two (1+1) reasons: 1) He used other symbols in those other theories which stood for other things he theorized were true but did not know to be true, and: 2) All of his mathematics—every bit of it dealing with outer space—began with the "fact" (2+2=5) that the Earth was turning on an axis daily and orbiting the sun annually. That "fact" was his new "four". The old four where the Earth stood still and everything went around it, didn't exist anymore.

Geocentrism was "four" in the old days but the new math said it could not be "four" anymore. "Four" was changed to heliocentrism. Another word, another symbol to explain and represent the same reality was required and invented. An Earth which appears from all angles and tests to be standing still can not be standing still in the new math which starts out with the "truth" that it is moving.

So the long and the short of it is that some rubbery mathematics have been used not only to change a fixed Earth into a moving Earth, but to go from that unwarranted premise into a bunch of other theories which "prove" mathematically that nothing can be standing still, that all the heavenly bodies are and must be in motion. Is that about it?

Yes. But, Vern, if the Earth is not moving, it's not moving. It's like number "four". One can call it something else; one can believe it's something else; one can make it into something else with mathematics; but one can never, never change the truth by doing these things. The appearance, the conviction, the concept, even the certainty can be changed in our minds. But if the reality, the fact, the absolute truth is different than what has been put into our minds by "education", indoctrination, etc., then it is the mind that must change, not the truth, for it never changes. Amen?

Amen. Bo Bo. So the name of the game is Deception . . . .
That's the word. Truly deceived people truly believe that what they believe is true.

The Earth Is Not Moving
Marshall Hall