Summary of the Scientific Method

By Bill Gaede

The establishment has yet to define the word science unambiguously and has no
clue regarding the purpose of the scientific method. Closer inspection leads us to
the center of the storm: the enigmatic word hypothesis. The morons of science
have misconstrued the meaning and purpose of the hypothesis, which they
somehow associate with the ability to make predictions. The worldly wisdom is
that if experiment confirms the hunch, the hypothesis can now be treated as a
theory. And when the theory is approved by a show of hands, it now becomes a
fact.

In Science, we do things a bit differently. First of all Science is not in the business
of making predictions. This is the stuff of astrologers, charismatic evangelists,
and mad scientists. And if we use Mathematics at all, it is merely to reinforce a
theory; equations are not a requirement of the scientific method. Mathematics
describes. Mathematics does not explain. Science is about explaining why, not
about describing how.

Then, in Science, we don’t test hypotheses. In Science, we formulate them and

ask the jurors to take them at face value. Assumptions, we formulate. It is
theories that we test, if at all, and only after the presentation is over. In Science,
there is no requirement for an experiment. A hypothesis consists of exhibits,
definitions, and a statements of the facts. There is no provision in a hypothesis
for Math or for experiments. The reason a contemporary ‘scientist’ cannot tell you
the difference between science and religion is primarily due to the
establishment’s failure to define the term hypothesis ‘scientifically’ (i.e., in such a
way that it can be used consistently).
Of course, when we follow the correct method, an entirely different picture of the
Universe emerges and you realize that the mathematicians have wasted the last
400 years in worthless pursuits. Once we make the correct assumptions
regarding the nature of invisible entities and mechanisms—light, the atom,
magnetism, space, gravity—we are finally in a position to explain and understand
why things happen. It is not the theories which are important in science, but the
hypotheses. A genuine scientific theorist should spend 99% of his time
brainstorming, researching, and developing his hypothesis, and the remaining
1% on his petty theory.
What is a hypothesis?
1.0 The establishment lives with irreconcilable definitions of the word hypothesis
The American heritage Dictionary defines the term scientific method as:
“ The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration
considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally
involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis
 concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or
falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the
hypothesis.”
Most, if not all, people who regard themselves to be scientists will more or
less agree with this definition. In general, this standard consists of four or five
steps:
“ observation…hypothesis…prediction…experiment…analysis” These
definitions would seem to be okay except that they contain the mysterious
word hypothesis. What does it mean? I ask this because by merely browsing
the Internet you will discover that people hold widely different opinions with
respect to this enigmatic word:
a. an objective or purpose; an investigative proposal or question:
“ Objectives: State the purpose or hypothesis upon which the project is
based.”
“ Will students who attended at least two years of Montessori preschool
have better reading comprehension abilities at the end of first grade than
those students who did not attend preschool at all?”
“ Question or hypothesis to be investigated. A hypothesis is a testable
assertion”
b. a prediction or testable statement
“ At the end of first grade, there will be a difference between the reading
comprehension abilities of children who attended Montessori preschool
and children who did not attend preschool at all.”
“ A hypothesis is your question in statement form. For example,
‘Sargassum inshore will have fewer organisms than Sargassum offshore.’
” “ The experimenter soon devises an experiment to test the hypothesis.” “
a hypothesis should be falsifiable, meaning that it is possible that it be
shown to be false, usually by observation” “ Before that hypothesis
becomes a theory, we must test that hypothesis” “ If one could prove the
hypothesis, it would no longer be a hypothesis” “ When a hypothesis fails
to give correct results, it is revised or rejected and replaced.”
[... except in Mathematical Physics! For example, when Einstein’s relativity
failed to describe the galaxy rotation problem, the idiots of Mathematics
did not reject relativity.
They simply invented something ad hoc called dark matter! Likewise, when the
idiots of Mathematics could not explain light with either the wave or the
corpuscular models, they did not reject Quantum Mechanics. They blended the
two and calledthe result a wave-packet!]

c. an assumption or guess:
 “ Hypotheses are single tentative guesses – good hunches – assumed for
use in devising theory or planning experiment” “ to suppose” “ supposition:
an assumption.”
“ hypothesis: Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or
investigation; an assumption.”
“ assumption: something taken for granted or accepted as true without
proof; a supposition.” Assumption
d. an explanation.

“ This hypothesis explains the isomorphism between the structure of experience

and neural organization...”
“ A hypothesis is an explanation with some evidence and testing behind it.” “ a
proposed explanation for a phenomenon.”
e. a theory:
“ Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a
hypothesis...”
(p.10)
“ a tentative theory about the natural world”
f. data analysis
“ data analysis (hypothesis)”
So what should we conclude about the hypothesis? Is the prosecutor
making a prediction, proposing a challenge, making an assumption, or
offering an explanation? Is a prediction the same as an assumption? Is an
assumption the same as an explanation?
Of course, with such an all-encompassing definition, it is not surprising
that contemporary ‘scientists’ cannot tell you whether Creationism is
scientific or whether Evolution is ‘just’ a theory. The morons of the
establishment have embodied so many irreconcilable notions in what they
call the hypothesis that this step of the scientific method has lost all
meaning. In order to use the strategic word hypothesis in a scientific
setting (i.e., consistently), it cannot continue to be so broad, malleable,
and self-serving.
2.0 Unless they understand what a hypothesis is, the mathematicians cannot
claim to be doing science As a result of the irreconcilable definitions of the
word hypothesis that the establishment has come up with, the anonymous
peers that review submissions for publication have not developed an eye for
catching theories disguised as assumptions. Take the statement:

“ Let us assume that Johnny did not rob the store.”

Most people would regard this as an assumption simply because the sentence
includes the word ‘assume’. It would appear, however, that the prosecutor is
already presenting a theory. The prosecutor is starting his case not with the initial
scene, but in the middle of the opera. Johnny robbing the store is not a
photograph, but a motion picture. The ET has not yet had a chance to learn what
the words Johnny, store, gun, and car allude to when we are already reaching
the movie’s unhappy ending. Johnny robbing the store is already a belief, an
explanation or, perhaps, an investigative proposal. It surely does not sound like
an assumption. e confirm that this statement is not a hypothesis when the
prosecutor synthesizes his closing remarks:
“ ...and therefore, this shows that Johnny could very well have robbed the store.”
In retrospect, the prosecutor began by denying a statement that he intended to
prove from the start:

“Recent observations vindicate the assumption”

However, if an assumption is not a statement that we prove, but rather a
statement that the juror is supposed to take at face value, then clearly the
morons of the establishment need to take a beginner’s course in Science.
3.0 A brief history of hypothesis
One major reason the word hypothesis is so misunderstood has to do with the
widespread notion that there are two methods of acquiring knowledge: the
deductive method and the inductive method. The deductive method allegedly
goes from the general to the specific. The inductive method is its antithesis and
apparently goes in reverse, from the specific to the general. Its purported aim is
to derive general principles from particular instances or facts.
The mainstream champions the inductive method and claims that it
revolutionized science starting in the 17th Century. Induction was a procedure a
researcher would follow to unlock the secrets of nature:
“The scientific method provides an objective process to find solutions to
problems”
[By scientific method, the establishment really means the inductive method…]

“ The inductive method (usually called the scientific method) is the deductive
method ‘turned upside down’…The inductive method of investigation has
become so entrenched in science that it is often referred to as the scientific
method.”
Newton synthesized his generation’s perception of the word hypothesis in
Principia:
“ I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena
(observational data) is to be called a hypothesis and hypotheses....have no place
in experimental philosophy…propositions are inferred from the data and
afterwards rendered general by induction.” Induction was allegedly superior to
deduction because it began with observation and made ‘testable predictions.’
Skeptics could experimentally corroborate the claims made by others. Unlike
Plato, Aristotle, and Euclid, who began with a set of selfevident or intuitive truths
– oftentimes shown to be unjustified opinions –the new breed of empiricists
(Galileo, Bacon, Brahe, Keppler, Descartes) began with a set of testable
proposals which, believing to be consistent with the Greek tradition, they called
hypotheses. Another source of confusion is the habit the Greeks had of following
up their illustrations with a hodge-podge of definitions, descriptions, axioms,
postulates, and propositions, all of which are conceptually irreconcilable. The
following examples are all taken from Euclid’s Elements: a. definition “A straight
line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.” (Bk. I, Def. 4)
b. description

“ Let AB be the given finite straight line.” (Bk I, Prop 1)

c. underscore a particular static, self-evident, or intuitive relation the geometer
wants the jury to focus on “ Things which are equal to the same thing are also
equal to one another.”(Bk I, Ax. 1) d. construct a figure (a set of guidelines to
construct a specific geometric figure)
“ To draw a straight line from any point to any point.” (Bk I, Post. 1) e. tell the
reader what the theorist is proposing to accomplish with the instant exercis
(purpose/prediction)
“ That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the
same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced
indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right
angles.” (Bk I, Post. 5)
Yet, despite that the Greeks had but remote ideas of the purpose of the
hypothesis, they more or less followed the scientific method largely because of
the nature of the field to which they applied it. Geometry is ideally a static
science, a close relative of Art, and lends itself to illustration. The Greeks started
their theorems with an illustration, made a set of assumptions, and inferred a set
of static relations that followed from these assumptions. Fields such as
Philosophy, Economics, and History often deal with abstract concepts and are
not readily amenable to illustration.
The empiricists, instead, applied the method to metaphysics. They started with
theories intuitively inferred from observing dynamic physical phenomena and
then attempted to discover and formulate the underlying assumptions. Thus the
modern researchers erroneously focused on the dynamic aspects of the Greek
hypothesis – axioms, postulates, and propositions. The problem actually
originates with Aristotle, who apparently extrapolated the syllogism from the
deductive method, until then consisting of illustrations and axioms. The syllogism
dealt with abstract concepts rather than with geometry, thus emphasizing the
relations between premises rather than between substances or things The
inductive method emphasizes the detective and not the prosecutor. It has to do
with how a detective came across his knowledge and not with why a
phenomenon happened.
Together with their newly discovered inductive method, the modern theorists
erroneously inferred from Euclid et al that a hypothesis is both a step in which the
experimenter gathers data and makes statements regarding what he is about to
prove. The empiricists of the 17th Century emphasized observation and prediction
and forgot about the underlying objects, facts, and assumptions altogether. A bad
habit gradually developed of taking the objects for granted. Increasingly, the
proponent dealt in abstract mode altogether. Since everyone was familiar with
ordinary objects, it would have seemed childish for the prosecutor to begin his
case by exhibiting a picture of a knife and a statue of a human. The prosecutors
got into the habit of skipping this boring and redundant step for fear of belittling
the scholars. It is thus how the modern peer reviewers have grown accustomed
to reading about point and quasi-particles and with 0D singularities and 4D
universes without batting an eyelash. The modern prosecutors, in effect, did
away with the hypothesis (initial scene, objects, facts) and plowed ahead directly
to the theory (explanation, belief). The genuine hypothesis gradually faded
almost unnoticed into oblivion and with it the entire scientific method. Whether
the discussion was about elephants or mice, spirits or souls, space-time or black
holes, particles or waves, the prosecutors bypassed the exhibits stage because
no one demanded or realized the significance of illustrations and objects. Thus,
the reason the forgoing definition of the term scientific method lacks a provision
for the word theory is that the word hypothesis has usurped this spot. It would be
redundant to define science in terms of two words that have the same meaning
and no purpose to talk about theory if the theory was already embodied in the
hypothesis. It is, thus, how the modern idiots refined the word hypothesis to
mean ‘untested theory’ whereas the theory became a rubber-stamped
hypothesis:
“ hypothesis: An explanation accounting for a set of facts that can be tested by
further investigation: THEORY…theory: An assumption or guess based on
limited knowledge or information: HYPOTHESIS.”
“ If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a
theory or law of nature”
“ A Theory is a hypothesis that has been experimentally tested and pretty
soundly confirmed. A Law is a Theory so well confirmed and so widely accepted,
that no reputable scientist doubts its truth.”
[Oh yeah? “ Orbis judicat terrarum” (The verdict of the world is conclusive; the
whole world cannot be wrong). St. Augustine said this in a time when all
reputable scientists believed the Earth was flat! If science depended on a show
of
hands, we would still be in the dark ages. What am I saying? Stupid of me! We
ARE in the Dark Ages!]

Of course, we can spend all day justifying that a scientific thesis may not do
without a hypothesis, but then it is more productive to establish its nature
unambiguously. Here I will attempt to elucidate the purpose of this mysterious
step and show why it is needed. I argue that a hypothesis is a recipe that
consists of three phases which I respectively call:
1. The Exhibits
2. The Definitions
3. A Statement of the facts
Without these ingredients, whether in explicit or implicit form, the prosecutor of a
theory is not doing science.
4.0 Conclusions
The infamous inductive method steamrolled over the scientific method,
specifically over the step called the hypothesis. The inductive method is a
good guideline to develop technology, but is lethal to theoretical physics and
science. The empiricists followed their worst intuition regarding the purpose of
the step known as hypothesis, thus breaking with an unwitting Greek tradition
and with science.

A hypothesis demands an exhibit

1.0 Without an exhibit, there can be no hypothesis

Physical objects are not only absolutely necessary for a theory of

Physics, but also for any scientific theory
.
A prosecutor should be able to make a movie of his theory because this is what a
theory is: an explanation. A theory is a story of how or why a physical
phenomenon happened. Every verb, adjective, and adverb that the prosecutor
pronounces implicitly alludes to a physical object. Without objects, the prosecutor
is simply not doing Science. It is at this fundamental level where the theories of
Mathematical Physics fail the scientific method.
A prosecutor would be hard-pressed to make a movie using abstract concepts.
The juror would be unable to visualize a concept like she does a stand-alone
object. Concepts are relations between objects. Words such as love, freedom,
beauty, direction, infinity, and time are all traceable to TWO objects or to a before
and after of one object. When a prosecutor converts the entire mass of an
elephant into a point and calls it the center of mass, he is no longer alluding to an
object. He has now dispensed with the object and is going to talk about the
concept center of mass. It would be irrational for the prosecutor to attempt to
move the center of mass later on during his dissertation. The center of mass is a
concept and has no location. If the mathematician wishes to move something at
theory, he must convert the center of mass back to an elephant. We can move
objects. We cannot move concepts.
Mathematical Physics fails because, like traditional religion, it is in the business
of moving abstract concepts.
We refer to these concepts- turned-objects as avatars, incarnations, emoticons,
or something like that. A mathematician converts an elephant into its center of
mass and places a dot to mark the spot. Then, he moves the dot. Or he rotates
the abstract concept tesseract thinking that it is a geometric figure. A
mathematician also transfers energy, accelerates fields, moves mass, travels
through time, and carries forces. The idiots of relativity and quantum routinely
morph concepts into objects and then proceed to move them around like
Christians move spirits. In the words of Poincare:
“ It is the simple hypotheses of which one must be most wary; because these are
the ones that have the most chances of passing unnoticed.” Indeed, the
mathematicians inherited this bad habit from theologians who, for centuries, have
converted verbs – love, soul, compassion, spirit, grace, eternity – into nouns
(e.g., God, heaven, hell, angel, ghost). The religion of Mathematical Physics
differs from Science in that it offers supernatural and irrational explanations for
physical phenomena.
Some mathematical physicists go to the extreme of proposing ‘theories’ without
bothering to introduce any exhibit whatsoever. Milgrom’s alleged MOND ‘theory’
is a case in point. Milgrom says that Newton’s force equation does not apply
throughout the Universe. He modified the equation to fit observation. Great! So,
what did we learn? What causes gravitation? Is it warped space? Particles?
Strings? Waves? Force? Field? A gravity well? Why does one celestial body
accelerate towards another? What physical entity causes the stars at the fringe
of a galaxy to orbit at the same rate as those near the center? Unless Milgrom
can back his claim by drawing the invisible intermediary that produces these
effects, his alleged ‘theory’ amounts to false advertising. All that Milgrom has is a
mathematical description followed by an unsubstantiated opinion. He does not
yet have a hypothesis, let alone a theory. 2.0 An abstract concept cannot be the
ultimate reality underlying a scientific theory If the definition of the word concept
invariably invokes two objects, any topic the prosecutor intends to present
rationally must be traceable to a physical object. What object is relativity
traceable to? Can space-time be the object underlying this theory when it is itself
made of two intangibles: space and time? What object is quantum traceable to?
Can a point-particle, an unfathomable dimensionless object (that the mechanics
concede is a concept) serve as the building block of tangible matter? Can we
construct a physical object such as the Sun with the 1-D lines of string theory? If
a theory is a movie of what happened, what is the director going to put on the big
screen when the topic of his dissertation is ‘energy transfer’ or ‘time dilation’?
What is he going to transfer? What is he going to dilate? Is he going to illustrate a
calorie? Sketch a minute? If these are the ‘objects’ that mathematical physicists
rely on to make their cases, then Mathematical Physics is a nonstarter.
3.0 Relativists do experiments in the lab with nothing The mathematicians are
fond of saying that an experiment should be able to falsify a theory in order
for it to be scientific. A rational human being concludes that the
mathematicians will not be able to avoid dealing with physical objects. How
else is the lab technician going to handle, detect, and measure if there is no
physical object present? What is it that will make the ‘detectometer’ blip?
Relativists have found a way around this requirement. The mathematical
physicists claim that they can infer the shape of an invisible object indirectly
from the behavior of a tangible and observable object in its vicinity.
Therefore, there is not even a requirement to illustrate the invisible object at
the center of the theory because it has been inferred through logic.
One famous example is Eddington’s ‘proof’ that space is warped, and which
relativists cite as a confirmation of Einstein’s theory. Eddington photographed
 a celestial object during an eclipse and assumed he was staring at a bunch of
particles swerving in space. He inferred that invisible gravity was bending the
beam of light around the Sun. Another is the black hole. Proponents allege
that they inferred this supernatural object from the effects a black hole causes
on a hapless neighbor. The logic behind this line of reasoning of
Mathematical Physics goes something like this: a bee flying around in circles
proves that the invisible space her itinerary encloses is round. Makes sense?
The recent case of Gravity Probe B (GPB), a project jointly run by NASA,
Stanford, and Lockheed follows this line of reasoning. The purpose of GPB
was to confirm GR’s ‘prediction’ that space is warped by observing the
behavior of four gyroscopes:

“ Its aim is to measure spacetime curvature near Earth”

Essentially, the designers were testing whether the gyroscopes would

touch space. The numskulls who oversaw the mission recently confirmed that the
mission was a success:
”Initial results confirm the expected geodetic effect to an accuracy of about 1%.”
Of course, the designers of GPB will object to the particular manner in which I
phrased their pricey experiment.
The way they see it, they weren’t really testing architecture, but behavior. The
gyroscopes were supposed to verify whether the degree of curvature of space
predicted by relativity is correct:
“ the geodetic precession of -6606 milli-arcsec/yr is measured to be about -6618
+/- 97 milli-arcsec/yr, and the frame dragging effect of 39 milliarcsec/ yr is
uncertain by the same roughly 100 milli-arcsec/yr systematic error estimate” But
such defenses only underscore the problem. We have to conclude that at some
point the GPB designers took for granted that space is a physical object. The
mathematicians were already at the next step attempting to establish the degree
to which this object was bent around. If space is not a physical object to begin
with, their entire experiment is misconceived and whatever data they collected is
worthless. If space is unphysical, not only did they NOT confirm relativity, but
they spent an awful lot of money doing so. Again, I am not questioning their data.
I am questioning the manner in which the experiment was designed and the
conclusions reached by these alleged experts. Did GPB confirm that space is a
physical object?
The mission managers will insist that the sensitive gyroscopes came up against
space and that this alone confirms that space is a physical medium consistent
with the ‘predictions’ of General Relativity and other experiments.
Let’s review what GPB hoped to achieve to see if this has any chance of being
true. Let’s first confirm that the experiment consisted in having the gyroscopes
come in physical contact with space:
“ They [the gyroscopes] were intended to measure how space and time are
‘warped’ by the presence of the Earth, and, more profoundly, if and how much
the Earth’s rotation ‘drags’ space-time around with it” The verb ‘drags’ (always
within quotations in relativity so that you can always backtrack and allege in
retrospect that it was just a figure of speech) refers to the phenomenon known as
frame dragging. Frame dragging is the friction between something and space:
“ According to Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, space and time get
pulled out of shape near a forcibly-accelerated or rotating body” “ when a body
moves, or a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and time” (p. 33)
“ One of the predictions of Einstein’s general theory of relativity is that local
spacetime is twisted by the rotation of the Earth… any rotating mass will drag
the local spacetime frame of reference with it…The predicted drag… can
affect the paths of light, energy, and other masses”

So I was not lying. Relativists believe that space (as well as the concepts energy
and mass) is a physical object that can be stretched and warped at will like a
hammock. If the people at GPB didn’t set out to prove specifically that space is a
physical object it is because they took this for granted. They assumed that space
is material when they designed the experiment. In fact, the official version of
Mathematical Physics is that space is not only a physical object made of
particles, but that it is the stiffest material in the Universe:
“ The most important thing to keep in mind about Einstein’s Universe is the
fantastic stiffness of space—of the rubber sheet, if you like. Let’s put it into
perspective: let’s say the magnitude of the stiffness of a rubber sheet is about 1 x
Using this criterion, the stiffness of solid steel is about 100 000 000 000, or
10*(11). Space has a magnitude of about 10 , a one with 43 zeroes after it!
Space is a billion billion billion times stiffer than steel! ... In other words, the
enormous but not infinite stiffness of Einstein’s spacetime tells us that, while
space is not infinitely rigid, it is very, very, very rigid. In fact, odd as it sounds,
space is the most rigid stuff in the Universe.” (p. 20) Therefore, my objection has
not been overruled. How do the prosecutors pretend to convince the public that
space is warped without first pointing to an exhibit of space? How can the juror
imagine a gyroscope ‘dragging’ space around itself (i.e., interacting with space)
unless both the gyroscope and space each possess a surface (Fig. 1)?
But then, how did the project controllers design their experiment if they cannot
even imagine space-time?
In order for the juror to be able to visualize the physical interpretations of the
Gravity Probe B project, the designers had to draw a picture of space on the
blackboard before the probe was built. Certainly, space must qualify as an object
(having shape) before we can talk about warping or measuring it:
“ we will have made the most precise measurement of the shape of local space-
time” (Executive Summary, p. 6)
In Physics, the adjectives warped, curved, and bent may only be used in the
context of physical objects. You can’t have ‘curved’ without the iron rod.
Conceptualization precedes experimentation. Shape necessarily precedes touch.
So what did the designers of GPB draw on the board before they went into orbit
to convince investors that this was a worthy venture? How can a juror visualize a
gyroscope rolling and tilting on a racetrack without the racetrack? I have no
problems conceding that the gyroscopes are physical objects. I question whether
space is a physical object. The ‘shape’ of WHAT are the idiots who run the NASA
Gravity Probe B project ‘measuring’?

Fig. 1

11. What gives shape to the gravity well?

12. What gives shape to the Earth?
13. What gives shape to the black stuff that gives shape to the stars
and the Moon in the background?
In order for mission designers to visualize a gyroscope measuring the degree of
warpage of space around the Earth, they first had to imagine a picture of the
gyroscope and of space. This implies that they ‘assumed’ that space is a
physical object that is amenable to bending. An object is that which has shape.
So what is the shape of space? What entity borders and gives shape to the
‘locally warped’ space in Fig. 1 (i.e., what is the black stuff that serves as
background) Do particles of space shear with respect to other particles of space?
What contours and gives shape to each particle that comprises space? The
relativity exhibit is surrealistic.
GPB was a misconceived experiment funded with millions of tax dollars. What
the mathematicians of GPB did was run with the misconceived ‘touch’ definition
of the word object that we find in ordinary dictionaries. Therefore, during the
design stage they unjustifiably assumed that space is a physical object. They
didn’t draw it on the board because everyone, including the investors took this for
granted as has been the norm for 400 years. The planners were really at the next
stage: imagining the gyroscopes coming in physical contact with space, which
would indirectly certify their hunch.
“ in Einstein’s universe, the spin axis of a perfect gyroscope orbiting the Earth will
precess over time with respect to the distant universe, as it follows the warping
and twisting curvature of spacetime.” (Executive Summary, p. 5) [This is really
scary. We have a physical object—a gyroscope—coming in physical contact with
an abstract mathematical concept: “The concept of spacetime combines space
and time within a single coordinate system” Thus, it is not surprising that mission
planners and managers confirmed their predictions afterwards with the execution
of the experiment. If the gyroscopes tilted over, it is because they touched
something, and what else could that be if not space?

4.0 Touch is an invalid criterion to define an object A simple thought experiment

exposes the fallacies of the everyday ‘touch’ definition of object. Assume you
are deep inside the Sun somewhere (or beneath the ocean if you prefer). Will
touching a couple of atoms of hydrogen tell you that you are inside a star, or
do you believe that you have to be on the outside of the Sun, viewing it from a
bird’s-eye perspective in order to realize that it is an object? Is the Sun an
object because you can touch it (from within) or because it has shape (from
without)? The former answer invokes an experiment. The latter is solely a
conceptual issue. Which is it going to be? You may argue that if I put you
inside an unknown container, you can infer that you are inside an object
because you can touch its walls. Clearly, these walls are real objects because
they keep you locked up. You could have closed your eyes and still have
arrived at the same conclusion without having any knowledge about the
container’s external shape. By merely touching the walls you realize that you
are trapped inside some kind of object. Surely this container is not an
abstraction if it prevents you from moving freely. This is more or less the
reasoning the designers of the GPB project had in the back of their [Link]
issue is really quite tricky and disorients even the best trained minds. Before
you can use the word object to tell me that you are trapped within one you
must define it. Do not assume that I know what you are talking about.
Assume, instead, that you have to explain the meaning of the word object to a
wild bushman. The first thing you realize is that you cannot make him
understand the word object by running a test. It is simply irrational to attempt
to prove a definition. In Science, it works the other way around. We define
words in order to subsequently prove and explain theories.
5.0
Again the objection is not overruled. And this brings us back to the question:
What is an object? What do we mean by the word object? This is the most
fundamental question in Physics. Unless the birdbrains at NASA, Stanford,
and Lockheed begin by defining the word object their conclusions are
meaningless. Their experiment is meaningless. They won’t be able to say that
space is a warped object or share their physical interpretation of the
experiment with a rational mind because they did not begin by defining the
most crucial word in their vocabulary! Are they doing Math or Physics? The
physical interpretation is the only part of their program that has anything to do
with Science. The rest is a bunch of irrelevant equations, a dose of hearsay,
and a waste of money.
I clarify that my argument is NOT that the gyroscopes did not come in
physical contact with something out there. I am saying that the gyroscopes
didn’t touch space as claimed by the project managers, which was what the
expensive project either assumed or was indirectly attempting to test.
What the GPB example shows is that whether a word represents a physical
object is a conceptual issue and not one of proof. We don’t prove that a table
is an object by touching it. The word touch entails TWO objects.
The touch definition implicitly invokes the object that does the touching. The
only way to ‘verify’ that a table is an object is by pointing at it from afar, but a
table is an object even before we do that. The GPB experiment does not
confirm relativity. It confirms that the morons who wasted all this tax money
do not understand the definition of the word object. If relativists assert that
space is a stand-alone physical object, they must be able to draw it as if they
were looking at space from afar. Since relativists realized a while back that
this is what the ordinary man is going to ask them to do, they developed
antidotes along the way:
“ in general relativity it became meaningless to talk about space and time
outside the limits of the universe.” [14]
“ It presumes that consciousness can take up a position outside existence as
such in order to observe it” [15]
[Why not? Is space-time a physical object or not? If it is, it has shape, which
means that it has to have a contour. Why can’t relativists imagine this object?]
“ all space sits inside the universe…that means that there is no outside to
space.
You can’t travel across the border, because if there is room to move you are
still inside, and if there’s no room to move, you can’t travel.” [16]
[Perhaps we should conclude, then, that space does not have a border, which
only confirms that space is not a physical object. Otherwise, space would
have shape! ]
So just when you had the relativist against the ropes and were ready to
pummel him, he asks the referee to stop the fight and allow him to go to the
little boys’ room. Then, he never returns to the ring, and, by default, you don’t
win the belt. Is there an equation that relativists can produce that shows that
there is no outside of space-time, or is this just another convenient, self-
serving ‘philosophy’ of theirs?
The incongruous attempt to prove objects retrospectively renders relativity un-
falsifiable. The GPB people are essentially denying you the right to challenge
that space is a physical object. They take this aspect of relativity theory for
granted alleging that they inferred it from equations. Since equations don’t lie
 and relativity has been confirmed countless times and it has never been
falsified, space is a physical object and that’s that!
If you don’t like it, go to the university and take a course in advanced Math.
Then you’ll understand. The only reason you don’t accept that space is an
object is that you rely on intuition and common sense.

A scientific definition is one that can be used consistently

1.0 Do we need definitions in Science?
It is axiomatic that without definitions we would be unable to formulate
hypotheses or explain theories.
Without them we cannot communicate ideas. This argument alone should
place definitions in a more prominent position than they enjoy today in
science. The mainstream doesn’t even allude to definitions indirectly in its
definition of the term scientific method. So you wonder how the
mathematicians pretend to convey thoughts to an ET if they don’t define their
terms first. Our forefathers had a total disdain for definitions, in great
measure, because they weren’t able to define anything scientifically. They
never realized the importance of crisp definitions. Their frustration led them to
argue that it was actually a waste of time. Pascal was one who thought it
unnecessary to define what he regarded as self-evident words:
“ there is nothing more feeble than the discourse of those who wish to define
these primitive words [space, time, motion, and number].” Why take the
trouble to define such words, he asks, if we already know what they mean?
“ these terms so naturally designate the things that they mean, to those who
understand the language, that their elucidation would afford more obscurity
than instruction.”
Newton arrived at a similar opinion:
“ I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all.” (p.
81)
But then their modern day followers claim that all of their theories and
conclusions are founded on rigorous definitions:
“ mathematics requires more precision than everyday speech.
Mathematicians refer to this precision of language and logic as ‘rigor’.”
” math is about making definitions”
As always, the mathematicians live with these contradictions and nobody
raises an eyebrow.
Pascal and Newton were obviously not very bright individuals. They failed to
realize the importance of definitions to communicate ideas. There is no
excuse for their feeble and unjustified declarations even in their age. Perhaps
in the 17th Century they knew what space, time, and numbers were, but,
somehow we seem to have lost this precious knowledge over the years. Not a
 single, contemporary, so-called ‘physicist’ can give you a straight-forward
definition of what these words mean:
” Space…can’t be defined via other quantities because there is nothing more
fundamental known at present.”
[Space is a quantity? I thought space was that black stuff the stars were
stapled onto.
The mathematicians really ought to be placed in mental asylums!]
” Attempting to understand time has long been a prime occupation for
philosophers and scientists…it is difficult to provide an uncontroversial and
clear definition of time”
” The meaning of ‘number’ is often clear from context”

In fact, it is more logical to argue the opposite, that if Pascal was so cockysure of
what these words meant, he should have flaunted his knowledge by documenting
their meanings for us. Either he knows what time is or he doesn’t. If he is one of
those enlightened sages who ‘understands the language,’ what prevents him
from putting his thoughts into words? And if he does put his thoughts in writing, it
destroys his reasoning that defining time is a worthless pursuit. Only imbeciles
fail to define their words and come up with such lame excuses. They do so
because they have no clue as to what they are talking about.
2.0 What is a definition?
Before a prosecutor defines a word that is going to make or break his theory, we
must first understand what a definition is. Unfortunately, when we look up this
word, we find a bunch of synonyms:
“ A definition gives us the meaning of a word.”
” signification: The established meaning of a word.” A definition is the meaning
which is a signification. Great! What have we learned?
In his Metaphysics, Aristotle kicked a couple of ideas around, but ended up
fumbling for a clue that failed to brainstorm. At least two of Aristotle’s proposals
can be eliminated right off the bat:
“ a definition is a sort of number” (Book VIII, Sec. 3) ” a definition is a set of words
which is one not by being connected together, like the Iliad, but by dealing with
one object.” (Book VIII, Sec. 6) If a definition is a number, what number should
we respectively assign to the words shirt, rock, and tree? And if a definition is a
set of words that deal with one object, does this make the Iliad a definition of the
word Troy?
Neither attempt is very useful or accurate.
The mathematicians have entertained other notions of what a definition is
supposed to be and which they derived from Aristotle. These include the
operational, the functional, and the descriptive definitions of definition. Are any of
these scientific? Can words defined according to these prescriptions be used
consistently in a dissertation?
3.0 We don’t define objects in Science
Let’s first establish that for the purposes of Science we cannot and don’t
define physical objects. An object is something you point to and name. You
point to a hairy globular object and say coconut. The ET marooned on the
island with you stares at the object you designated and associates the object
with the sound you uttered.
This is the only time the word coconut qualifies as an object. Any usage
beyond this summarily converts coconut into a concept. Whether you
describe a coconut or use it to explain something, you are relating it to other
objects. You are comparing size, speed, color, shape, etc. A definition is an
explanation and, in Science, we don’t explain objects. In Science, we
visualize them. In Science, we point to an image and name it, ideally with a
single syllable. The only property an object has is shape, the shape you are
staring at. The word object is a category which includes only those words that
represent shapes. Bohr was one who was very close to discovering this
tantalizing wisdom:
“ When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet,
too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images.”
Niels Bohr In Science, we can only define concepts, and here we come to
terms with the fact that there are two types: static and dynamic. Let’s look at
them separately and see if we can zero-in on the definition of the word
definition.
4.0 Static concepts
Since the days of Pythagoras and Plato, the idiots of Mathematics and
Philosophy have relied on functional or operational definitions to designate
physical objects:
“ An operational definition is a showing of something — such as a variable,
term, or object — in terms of the specific process or set of validation tests
used to determine its presence and quantity.”
The proponents are saying that if there is an invisible object, you determine
that it exists by running an experiment. A recent example is Gravity Probe B.
The morons at NASA ‘proved’ that space is a physical object—a solid—by
measuring the friction a few gyroscopes experienced while moving through it.
In like manner, the bozos manning the accelerators have ‘proven’ the
existence of particles they call virtual, a particle that disappears and appears
at will for no reason except to make the equations come out right. So what is
the shape of a virtual particle during those brief moments in which it is
nothing? What is the shape of space if it is a physical object?
The ‘operational’ way of defining words asks you to run an experiment,
observe, and wait for the results. The answers you get will tell you in
retrospect what it is you were testing. You now know what the crucial word in
your theory ‘meant.’ The prosecutor waits till the end of the presentation to tell
us in retrospect what he was talking about. He doesn’t tell us what he’s gonna
 tell us. He tells us what he told us. Meanwhile, the jury must sit through the
rant without understanding anything:
“ An item like a brick, or even a photograph of a brick, may be defined in
terms of how it can be made. Likewise, iron may be defined in terms of the
results of testing or measuring it in particular ways. One simple, every day
illustration of an operational definition is defining a cake in terms of how it is
prepared and baked (i.e., its recipe is an operational definition).”
” we build operational definitions for the words ‘particles’ and ‘waves.’ “
” we explain what a carburetor is, in terms of how it interacts with ignition
chambers
and with other things”
[ A brick is the same thing as the process to make it? A cake is the same thing as
a recipe?

A carburetor is what it does? I think I need another beer to understand all of this.
These things are over my head.]
We can see how a posteriori ‘operational’ definitions can come in handy to the
prosecution. For instance, imagine asking someone to define the word ‘giraffe’
she just used in her theory. She replies, “Go to the zoo and look for the tallest
animal. That’s what I meant by giraffe.” And what is this thing called ‘wave’ that
you have been talking about for the past two hours? She replies,”Go to the ocean
and observe what washes onto the beach. That’s what I meant by wave. After a
while, the jury gets the hang of it and realizes that the prosecutor can explain
anything with functional and operational definitions. The operational definition is
actually a proof disguised as a definition. That’s why the mathematicians and the
philosophers absolutely love them.
So? Does the ‘operational’ definition work?
The conclusions reached by Harrison and Tonomura speak for themselves:
“ Finally, then, we have two contradictory yet complementary models of the two-
slit experiment for electrons. In one model the electron is a particle that somehow
exhibits an interference pattern. In the other model, the electron is a wave that
somehow manifests as a particle whenever we look at it.” ” interference fringes
are formed only when electron waves pass through on both sides of the electron
biprism at the same time but nothing other than this. Whenever electrons are
observed, they are always detected as individual particles.

When accumulated, however, interference fringes are formed...We have reached

a conclusion which is far from what our common sense tells us.” [Yeah!
Nokidding!]

So much for operational definitions! It’s career re-directioning for both of you
guys!

What should we have concluded if Harrison assumed initially that light is a

particle and then carried out his experiment and discovered that light behaved as
a wave? According to Popper, this falsifies his particle explanation (i.e., his
theory). By relying on after-the-fact ‘operational’ definitions, Harrison has eluded
this control.
Operational definitions of physical objects are worthless garbage that the idiots of
Mathematics and their sidekicks, the philosophers, invented to explain any and
every phenomenon. They are unscientific because they are not used throughout
the dissertation, but rather at the end. Harrison does not define on his website
what a wave or what a particle is. He merely provides experimental criteria to
determine the nature of a photon retroactively. His method fails because he still
cannot tell you what light is. He just tells you that if observation indicates that
light behaved as a wave, then it probably was a wave throughout the experiment.
Functional and operational definitions are attempts to elude the scientific
requirement of defining words at the hypothesis stage. The scientific method
doesn’t work like that. The scientific method absolutely requires the prosecutor to
tell the jury in advance what his strategic terms mean so that the jurors can follow
the plot.
5.0 The scientific definition of definition
Descriptive definitions are similar to operational and functional definitions except
that they are circumscribed to static concepts. Thus, a table is:
“ An article of furniture supported by one or more vertical legs and having a flat
horizontal surface.”
Descriptive definitions differ from operational in that they address architecture as
opposed to behavior. We use adjectives rather than adverbs to describe.
Behavior is not something we describe. It is something we explain. A static
concept must be defined before it can be used in a theory. For example, if the
prosecutor says big, white, and with wings, is he talking about a swan or the
White House?
In order to distinguish the White House from a swan, we simply have to continue
adding more properties and attributes until the jury has no chance of confusing
one with the other. For example, if I say big, white, with wings, and is a building,
this summarily disqualifies the swan. What I have done is place restrictions on
the term ‘White House’ so that the jury does not mistake it for a swan. I have
narrowed the range of interpretations the jury can give the term at the center of
my presentation. If a prosecutor wishes to use a word consistently throughout a
scientific presentation and expects the jury to understand precisely what he is
talking about, he must put limits to its extension. The broader the meaning of a
word, the weaker the message that gets across: definition: A limitation the
prosecutor places on a word’s utility or extent.
I clarify once again that, for the purposes of ordinary speech, this definition of
definition is too rigid. The limitation or restrictive definition is the scientific version
of what a definition is. A strategic term that follows this prescription has a chance
of being used consistently throughout a dissertation.
A scientific definition is timeless and observer-less (i.e., proof-less). When initially
brainstormed, it is usually in a rudimentary form and therefore receives a broad
interpretation. As we realize that the different versions cause communication
problems, we begin to restrict the word’s usage in order to express thoughts with
increasing precision. A perfect definition is one that has been refined to the point
where everyone interprets exactly the same thing.
In Science, we don’t define words with mathematical symbols like they do in the
religion of Mathematical Physics. We define them with words and sentences. It is
also necessary to define the crucial terms on which a theory hinges. The looser
we define a word, the wider the range of interpretations, and the more dilute the
message that gets across will be. We need rigorous definitions to communicate a
scientific theory precisely. A prosecutor who leaves a strategic word in his theory
undefined is not doing science because he cannot possibly understand what he
is talking about. He has left a loophole through which to escape when the press
starts asking the tough questions at the end of the presentation. The word
convex is a good example of a proof ‘definition’ used in Mathematical Physics
(i.e., operationalfunctional definition) and of how it differs from a true definition.
The mathematicians define convex as:
“ A figure is convex if, for every pair of points within the figure, the segment
connecting the two points lies entirely within the figure.” This definition requires
you to run an experiment to certify that the two points indeed lie within the figure
before you can call the figure ‘convex’.
However, in Science, we don’t ‘construct’ definitions step by step (i.e., prove
them). We define them before we do anything with them:
“ convex: Having a surface or boundary that curves or bulges outward, as the
exterior of a sphere.”
I am not saying that this definition is correct. I am saying that this example
typifies the correct form a scientific definition should have. Now we can run the
experiment that the previous definition asked us to run because we have a
standard with which to measure success. While we’re at it, let’s also clarify that a
definition is not the same as meaning. A definition is what a prosecutor proposes.
Meaning is what the juror gets out of it. Meaning has to do with how a definition is
interpreted. If a definition is on the emitting end, meaning is on the receiving end.
A prosecutor issues definitions. A juror infers meaning. A prosecutor acts as his
own juror.
6.0 Dynamic concepts
Relativists run into yet more trouble with dynamic concepts. In their ridiculous
efforts to prove their definitions, the mathematicians have ended up
converting static concepts into dynamic concepts:
“ Whichever definition one chooses, one must then prove that it has the
properties one wants…a ‘construction-definition’ ‘
[Thus, Weyl ends up ‘proving’ what a line is by constructing it footprint by
footprint or filming the trajectory of a dot!]
 ” For example, the weight of an object may be operationally defined in terms
of the specific steps of putting an object on a weighing scale... what’s
being defined is how to measure weight”
[In other words, the idiots of Mathematics don’t tell you what they mean by
weight.
They’re already at the next step measuring it! What does measurement have to
do with Physics or with definitions? This is strictly a mathematical pursuit.]
” parallel: (of straight lines) lying in the same plane but never meeting no matter
how far extended.”
[So? Is the equal sign ( = ) comprised of parallel lines? How far should we extend
them before we are satisfied that they are parallel? I thought parallel and
perpendicular were static concepts!]

The word parallel can only be used consistently if we use the equidistant version
of the definition. Only then is it a static concept as it should be. The intersection
version, the one that dares you to extend the lines towards infinity, is a proof
disguised as a definition and thus unscientific. Mathematics deals exclusively
with dynamic situations. The mathematicians have no use for qualitative, static
concepts. Therefore, it was predictable in retrospect that the bozos of
Mathematics would have eventually scrapped the equidistant version and
replaced it with the intersection version. The mathematicians deal with geodesics
(motion) not with lines (architecture). In Mathematics it is irrelevant whether
something is parallel. Mathematics is interested in ‘how’ and not in ‘what’ or
‘why’.
In his example of the IQ test, Harrison does not define the word intelligence.
Instead, he makes a scale pertaining to an unknown parameter and hopes you
figure out what it is that he was talking about for the last two hours.
“ An ‘operational definition’ is just a well-defined repeatable experimental
procedure whose result defines a word or words… An operational definition of
intelligence… could be: I administer the Stanford-Binet IQ test to a person and
score the result.
The person’s intelligence is the score on the test…”
If we accept his ‘operational’ definition of intelligence, we end up with idiotic
conclusions. Assume that you are lucky or that you cheat on Harrison’s IQ test
and answer all the questions correctly. His method says that you are more
intelligent than the guy who studied for three months and got one answer wrong.
So, what did we learn about intelligence? What does the word intelligence mean?
The definition of a dynamic concept is really not that much different than that of a
static concept except that we use adverbs to characterize and qualify it. We don’t
use mathematical symbols to define scientific words.
We use words of ordinary grammar. Thus, the definition of energy is not E = m c²
because this doesn’t tell us what the word energy refers to. This just tells us how
much. The ‘ability or capacity to do work’ is the correct format of a scientific
definition. The more precise the definition, the greater the chances the jury has of
understanding the theory faithfully.
6.0 The ‘tree-in-the-forest’ school of thought of Mathematical Physics Operational
definitions have led the mathematicians and philosophers to the tree-in-the-
forest school of thought. Does a tree that falls in a forest makes a sound if
there is no one to hear it? Of course, only the stupid idiots of Mathematical
Physics ponder such questions and get into all kinds of arguments. To settle
the matter between them, the teams prepare sensitive equipment and head
for the forest to test the ‘hypothesis’.
7.0
Eventually, one group writes a seminal paper and gets a Nobel Prize for its
contribution to man’s knowledge of sound or trees or whatever.
The mathematicians routinely rely on idiotic ‘tree-in-the-forest’ reasoning to
answer mundane questions. Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg were two
not-so-bright individuals who developed the ‘tree-in-the-forest’ reasoning into
an art. They alleged that whether there is a reality out there depends on the
perception of a human (i.e., experiment). So successful were these two
heroes of Mathematical Physics that they created the ’tree-in-the-forest’
Copenhagen Interpretation. If you have nothing better to do and want to have
a good laugh, I suggest you visit the school and listen to the scholars. In
Science, this question is a no-brainer. The scientific method requires the
prosecutor to define the crucial words that make or break his theory. Once he
defines the strategic words, in this case sound and noise, whether a tree
makes a thump flows from these definitions. We’re done. We don’t prove
definitions in Science.
This is an activity that is solely confined to Mathematical Physics. Perhaps
the most famous and ludicrous ‘tree-in-the-forest’ fib ever sold is
Schrödinger’s Cat, which coincidentally comes from the same generation of
mathematical claque of the Roaring 20s to which Bohr and Heisenberg
belonged. Just about everyone in relativity believes in this ‘intellectual’
milestone even today. The idiot of Mathematics argues that whether a cat is
dead or alive is an issue that must be resolved by a trained veterinarian.
Meanwhile, until the stagecoach arrives, the cat is in limbo somewhere
between heaven and hell.
Again, in Science, this dead-cat issue is a no-brainer. Like with the falling
tree, we simply need to define the crucial words that make or break our
theories, in this case, the words dead and alive. It follows from these
definitions that a cat is either dead or alive before the doc puts the
stethoscope to its heart. Likewise, whether God or a particle exists hopefully
is not an issue that we must resolve with a test or with verification. Whether
you believe or don’t believe that God exists is irrelevant. God exists or doesn’t
whether you like it or not!
8.0 Should we define every word in a scientific presentation The cynical
devil’s advocate may make a final stand. Why doesn’t the prosecutor redefine
 every word that he plans to use in his theory, including but, the, and it? That
way he wouldn’t have to worry about the jury mistaking a word of art for its
ordinary meaning. Can’t the prosecutor just invent a new word if he is
proposing a new concept?
Locke rightfully argues that this is unnecessary:
“ a distinct name for every particular thing would not be of any great use for
the improvement of knowledge” (Bk. III, Ch. 3)
” If all names were definable, it would be a process in infinitum.” (Bk III, Ch.4)

I think most people would agree. It would be impractical and unnecessary for the
prosecutors to go to the extreme of inventing a new language every time they
introduce a new theory. The purpose of language is to communicate ideas.
“ When a man speaks to another, it is that he may be understood: and the end of
speech is, that those sounds, as marks, may make known his ideas to the
hearer.” (Bk. III, Ch. 2)
For the purposes of a presentation, the approximate meanings and ordinary
definitions of the great majority of words that the prosecutor will use are more
than adequate. The words the prosecutor must absolutely define (especially
upon request) are those on which his theory hinges: words of art. If relativists
invoke the word energy to explain an important aspect of their theory, it may not
be relevant to tell the jurors what they mean by but or it, but they surely must tell
us what they mean by energy. In fact, what the prosecutors are actually doing
when restricting a strategic word’s usage is refining its meaning so that the jury
does not confuse it with its ordinary meaning. The prosecutors are putting the
jurors on notice that it’s not business as usual. The role of the juror is to watch
out for circular definitions, proofs presented as definitions, or definitions used
inconsistently in the presentation. I further propose the principle that a theorist
may define a word any way he wishes. Science would make little progress if the
prosecutor were compelled to adhere to tradition and authority. The introduction
of a new, refined, or restrictive definition of a word has the purpose of highlighting
it for the jurors. It puts them on notice that the word will have a particular
meaning for the purposes of the instant case.

The scientific method demands a statement of the facts

1.0 A statement of the facts is not a fact
In addition to the exhibits and the definitions, a hypothesis consists of a
statement of the facts also known as the assumptions. A statement of the
facts is necessary because it constitutes the foundation of a scientific theory.
The purpose of the assumptions is to paint the initial scene for the juror. A
statement of the facts may either describe an object or tell the jury what
happened. It addresses how as opposed to why questions, specifically, how
an event occurred.
Unfortunately, the establishment routinely confuses the assumptions with the
facts. This has a lot to do with why the mathematicians end up testing
 assumptions. In order to distinguish between the two, it is necessary to get to
the bottom of the word fact.
Defining the word fact is not an easy task because, like with the word
hypothesis, the scholars have developed inconsistent notions. Contemporary
definitions embody a mixture of objects, evidence, opinions, and occurrences.
We find examples of such contradictory notions in ordinary dictionaries. A fact
could be:
2.0
• something demonstrated to exist or to have existed
• a real occurrence or event
• something believed to be true or real
• events determined by evidence
Unfortunately, these definitions are inadequate for use in a scientific setting. A
fact cannot simultaneously be an object (something) as well as an occurrence
(an event). One is static and the other is dynamic. More importantly, a fact
cannot simultaneously be objective and subjective. Objective facts are to
evidence what subjective facts are to assumptions. We need to resolve these
discrepancies before we can use the word fact consistently in a discussion.
In order to get a feel for the gulf that separates a fact from a statement of the
facts it is helpful to become acquainted with the term Universal Movie. Imagine
that you could take a photograph of the entire Universe from afar. Now visualize
a movie comprised of such photographs for every location of every atom and
every object. I’ll refer to this concept as the Universal Movie. The characters of
the Universal Movie are all the atoms in existence. Every frame in a cosmic
filmstrip is comprised of every object, every atom in the Universe. Each atom is
separated from all the others by a gap. In each field of view or cross-section of
time, a given atom or object only has location. The Universal Movie does not
consist of events (i.e., motion) as in Mathematical Physics. The Universal Movie
consists of shapes. That’s what appears on every frame of the film. Without
them, the screen would be blank and the director would have nothing to show.
The semblance of motion and time is provided by the incessant flowing of frames
containing these shapes. Each atom changes its location from frame to frame
with respect to the rest. The reason sentient beings perceive motion is that they
store in memory previous frames of the movie.
Under this proposal, a fact consists of a particular film clip of the Universal Movie
without cuts or edits. Put in other words, a fact is every minute detail that actually
happened irrespective of observers. A fact consists of an uninterrupted sequence
of locations of every atom in the Universe. A statement of the facts, on the other
hand, is like any contemporary movie. It consists of select film clips cut from the
Universal Movie and spliced together. We don’t usually see a 4-hour boring strip
of film where a man wakes, takes a shower, dresses, drinks his coffee, walks to
his car, drives to work, and works all day. Most of this material is edited out
because it is irrelevant to the main point the director is attempting to
communicate.
Whereas a fact is an uninterrupted strip of the original film, a statement of the
facts only contains select frames (Fig. 1). The purpose of a statement of the facts
is to prepare the groundwork for a scientific theory. A statement of the facts may
also include a description of key parts of a physical object that the prosecutor
believes is necessary for the jury to keep specifically in mind in order to
understand his theory.
Testimony consists of a concise summary, bits and pieces, here and there of the
Universal Movie. By definition, if the film clips the witness provides match exactly
the corresponding frames in the Universal Movie, we call it the truth. Otherwise, it
is known as a lie. In Physics, whether a testimony is truthful or a lie is an
objective matter. It has only to do with the locations of atoms and objects and not
with what people think happened. If the Earth is actually spherical and someone
earnestly testifies that it is flat, this testimony is a lie irrespective of whether the
jury is aware of it or not. A scientific lie has nothing to do with intentions, but with
whether it matches what actually happened or is. Presentation of scientific
evidence is circumscribed to the Exhibits (or evidentiary) phase and differs from
legal evidence in that testimonials are not included. Scientific evidence consists
solely of genuine strips of film of the Universal Movie, for example, a bone found
in a layer of earth.
Statements of the facts are ideally based on evidence and ideally objective. For
example, a description tends to be objective because it consists of a listing of
static and dynamic attributes. The witness is describing an object or a scene.
This is objectivity is what has value in a statement of the facts. An explanation,
on the other hand, is always subjective. The witness is providing a particular
version of the events. However, an explanation could be about a mechanical
process (i.e., how, causation) or it could involve a subjective opinion of the
reason behind an occurrence (i.e., why, intention). Testimonials that purport to
answer why questions are not a part of Science. Science is objective.
Researchers often mistake these different types of explanations and use the
word why (e.g., why something happened) in situations where they are actually
‘explaining’ how something occurred. Testimony given at the theory stage is a
statement of authority. Its purpose is not to produce a fact, but to unduly sway
the jury through authority by presenting a statement of the facts as a theory or
conclusion. A testimony given at theory has a political agenda. In Fig. 1, I
represent evidence with filled frames.A

A: The Universal Movie or facts: a film of what actually happened. Every frame
contains every atom in the universe. The atoms change location (i.e., their
distances vis-à-vis each other) from frame to frame. A fact is an uninterrupted
film clip of the authentic movie.
B: Assumptions or Statement of the Facts: a film suggested by evidence (filled
frames) and provided by testimony (clear frames). This movie consists of film
clips selectively cut from the Universal Movie and spliced together. An
assumption is a summary of selected parts of what actually happened and
consists of very few frames.
By definition only, if the frames of the assumptions match the corresponding
frames in the original movie, we will refer to this film clip as the truth. Otherwise,
we will call it a lie. In Physics, truths and lies only have to do with the locations of
objects and not with subjective thoughts and intentions.

The problem with the ‘confirmed’ particle proposal of Mathematical Physics is

that after decades of toying
with accelerators, the mathematicians are still missing the most important
element that would allow them to
make the sweeping claim Rennie takes for granted. They are missing the
initial scene of the movie – Exhibit A

• the object that underlies their theory. It is this missing crucial frame of
their film that compels the mathematicians to make retroactive
assumptions: that they are staring at tracks and that the trace was
carved by a particle. An assumption is not a fact. An assumption is a
statement of the facts: the prosecutors’ interpretation of the evidence
or of a phenomenon. They could just as well have said that a spirit
produced the tracks and we would have never noticed the difference.
The only way that Anderson and Rennie can introduce evidence in
Science is by bringing the actual particle. Otherwise, all they have is a
statement of the facts: an assumption. And if they cannot even
illustrate their particle, for example, to explain how its architecture is
related to its behavior, then they have bypassed the Exhibits phase
altogether. When the mechanics claim that a positron is a fact, they are
doing nothing less than bullying the jury into swallowing their religion.
•
Like all scientific theories, the Theory of Evolution is comprised of
fact and opinion, evidence and theory, and we must learn not to
confuse them. The Darwinists confuse finding bones in a given
layer of earth (facts and evidence) with their interpretation of the
finding (theory and proof). A fossil is evidence of a fact (i.e., that
something happened). How long it has been there, why it is there,
and whom these remains belong to are either statements of fact or
theories, but never facts. Even assuming that Gould and Rennie
prove to everyone on Earth that a bone is a million years old, this
theory will never become a fact. The reason for this is that theories
and facts pertain to different stages of the scientific method. In
Science, a juror may vote for a theory, but not for a fact. A fact
differs from a theory in that it is observer-free and belongs to the
hypothesis stage. In Law, a verdict is the fact-finder’s opinion with
 respect to a fact: a conclusion. In Science, there are no ‘triers-
offact’ or verdicts because facts are strictly part of the assumptions.
When we say that it is a fact that this cup is on this table, we are
not giving an opinion or asking for a verdict. We are making a
statement about a real film clip of the Universal Film. That this cup
is on this table is a fact. That you say that this cup is on the table is
a statement of the facts: an assumption. Both belong to the
hypothesis. Why the cup is on the table (meaning HOW it got there
– by what mechanical process) is an issue that belongs to the
hypothesis (if you are using it to formulate an assumption) or to the
theoretical stage of the scientific method. You can believe the
theory proposed by the prosecutor. Your vote will not retroactively
modify what actually occurred (true fact). If God sweeps the floor, it
won’t alter the fact that it was dirty a minute ago, even in the case
where He wipes the entire incident from everybody’s memory.
A statement of the facts involves two parties: a prosecutor and a
juror. Prosecutors make statements of the facts./ A assumptions is
what a juror makes. Assunmption means a juror will take a statent
of the facts at face value. When the prosecutor says, “I assume…”
He is his own jury. He is saying that he will proceed as if his
statement of the facts is true.
2.0 A relativist is a person who confuses facts with the statement of the facts
Most of the irrational conclusions of relativity and quantum originate in the
bad habit relativists have of treating science like law. They attempt to prove a
theory the way they would prove a legal case. However, Science differs
significantly from law, most notably in that scientific evidence does not include
testimony. The declarations of a witness are inadmissible in a scientific
dispute. Scientific evidence is a collection of frames of the Universal Film that
are genuine, scattered fragments of the real or true facts. A fossil found in a
layer of rock is evidence, an authentic piece of the Universal Movie, a
remnant of a true fact. A fossil comprises but a few priceless frames in the
humongous cosmic video. The interpretation of the fossil (or of the
circumstances in which the fossil was found), on the other hand, is a
statement of the facts: an opinion presented in the form of an assumption.
The jury is expected to accept this assumption at face value, meaning that it
is not in contention. What will be in contention is the theory that follows and
which is based on the assumption. This doesn’t make the statement of the
facts a fact or convert it to truth. Fact and truth constitute what actually
happened irrespective of knowledge or testimony. A statement of the facts is
what the prosecutor is asking you to assume happened. A statement of the
facts is what a prosecutor formulates. An assumption is what the jury
concedes. A statement of the facts is to assumption what a definition is to
meaning. The prosecutor is converting a theory into a hypothesis that serves
as a stepping stone for yet another theory.
 For example, in law, a knife and the fingerprints on a knife constitute
evidence. It happens that, as a matter of fact, the fingerprints on the knife
match Johnny’s. However, whether Johnny touched the knife is a statement
of the facts. In law, such a factual statement is a synonym of evidence and of
a true fact because it follows from reasoning. We bear down on the issue
from our experience. It is next to impossible that Johnny can improvise a twin
brother or that someone made the prints artificially. The criterion in criminal
cases is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ and in civil cases, ‘preponderance of
the evidence.’ Such alibis as ‘twin’ and ‘artificial’ would have trouble passing
either legal test or convincing the jury. (And then again we send innocent
people to the chair.)
In Science, however, alibis are immaterial. We must consider all the
possibilities because we don’t know what Mother Nature has in store for us.
From a conceptual point of view, a statement of fact is not the same thing as
evidence or as fact. A statement made by a witness is not equivalent to the
frame of the universal movie in which the action occurred. In Science, it is not
the same for the bottle to be on the table as for the prosecutor to say that the
bottle is on the table. One is a fact, the other a statement of the facts. By
equating facts with assumptions in their papers (always in past tense),
relativists are cheating on the scientific method.
For instance, in his seminal ‘positron’ paper, Anderson treated the particles
he mentions in his statement of the facts as a genuine fact simply because
the fingerprints of these critters were all over the place:
“ On August 2, 1932, during the course of photographing cosmic-ray tracks
produced in a vertical Wilson chamber… the tracks shown in Fig. 1 were
obtained, which seemed to be interpretable only on the basis of the existence
in this case of a particle” [1]
Anderson was bearing down on the issue from experience. He took for granted
that he was observing the footprints of a particle. [Photographs of tracks? What
did he drink on that day?] Anderson converted an inference – what he believed to
be compelling evidence (impacts, tracks) – into a fact: a particle. In other words,
Anderson concluded that Big Foot exists because of the size of the prints, the
depth of the toe that punctured the ground, and the length of the stride, the logic
being that if it quacks, walks, and swims like a duck, it is a duck. [Following his
logic, perhaps we should also conclude that crop circles are made by
mischievous extraterrestrials.] It is to note that with this seemingly innocent
sleight of hand, Anderson won the Nobel Prize and misled an entire generation of
mathematical physicists. Anderson’s proposal is easily demolished. What did the
particle do? Jump up and down from footprint to footprint at the speed of thought
while turning a sharp corner? Anderson has got to be kidding! Are we staring at a
collage? Is he saying that we are gawking at a movie synthesized in one
photograph? Anderson was condecorated for calculating the mass and speed of
the positron, the presumed particle in question. If the marks were not made by a
particle, Anderson has to return his medal. Here I look at Anderson’s proposal in
more detail and present an alternative model that can also leave ‘positron’
footprints behind. My argument shows that Anderson’s alleged facts were merely
his particular (and incorrect) statement of the facts. Particles are not facts.
Particles are proposals: part of the assumptions. This is the reason we must
distinguish in Science between true facts and statements regarding the facts
made by witnesses. Unfortunately, the establishment today regards Anderson’s
testimony as a fact. Every person working at the accelerators believes that he is
contemplating particles.

Indeed, it is when the prosecutors attempt to pass a statement of the facts (an
opinion) for a fact that they end up bullying the jury into accepting the theory as a
done deal. This is religion, not Science! Gould [2] and Rennie [3] fall back on
such tactics when they passionately claim that Evolution is a fact. Ironically,
Rennie uses Anderson-like ‘confirmed’ particles to prop up his argument. He
resolutely affirms that Evolution is a fact like subatomic particles are a fact:
“ All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see
subatomic particles directly, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale
tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct
observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.”
[No kidding? Perhaps Rennie also believes that ancient pyramids and
contemporary crop circles were made by ETs. I prefer to think that the particles
Rennie is so sure of are lies. There is not a single particle in the entire Universe!]

Rennie confuses testimony for evidence. If it is a fact that this object

called
a particle is responsible for making the tracks, Rennie and Anderson must simply
bring the particle that made the tracks and place it on the table! It turns out that
researchers not only cannot bring the particle to the show and tell, they can’t
even illustrate it! The mechanics have no idea what any of the particles in the
Standard Model even looks like.
Rennie and Anderson will probably reply that the particle is invisible and that it is
unreasonable to expect them to know what an invisible particle looks like. But
what else could have made the tracks if not a particle?
If this is their answer, it instantly confirms that the infamous particle is simply an
assumption. The experts are inferring the invisible ‘particle’ from yet another
assumption: that they are staring at tracks. They are bearing down on the entire
issue from experience (opinion) and not from what is. The mathematicians are
introducing testimony at the hypothesis stage. In other words, they are playing
politics: attempting to persuade the jurors through statements of authority. We
have no quarrel if the particle is merely an assumption to understand the theory.
We have a quarrel when the prosecutor converts the particle into a real entity,
when it goes from assumption to fact, from hypothesis to religion. Rennie should
know better. If what the particle physicists play around with every day are
particles, why can’t they answer kindergartenlevel questions? Is a particle
dimension-less, 2-D, or 3-D? Is it volume-less, structure-less, spherical, cubic, or
cylindrical? How is the particle’s structure related to its behavior? Why does a
photon travel at a constant speed? Why is muon fatter than the electron if both
are elementary particles? Why is the elementary particle electron larger than the
mass-less elementary particle photon? Is Anderson’s ‘scratch mark’ a continuous
groove or a series of discrete footprints ? If a scratch, did Anderson’s particle
stop after it piled up a mountain in front of itself or did it jump over the pile and
escape? Who knows! Maybe it’s still at the end of the scratch! The researchers
should check, just in case...
The problem with the ‘confirmed’ particle proposal of Mathematical Physics is
that after decades of toying with accelerators, the mathematicians are still
missing the most important element that would allow them to make the sweeping
claim Rennie takes for granted. They are missing the initial scene of the movie –
Exhibit A

• the object that underlies their theory. It is this missing crucial frame of their
film that compels the mathematicians to make retroactive assumptions: that
they are staring at tracks and that the trace was carved by a particle. An
assumption is not a fact. An assumption is a statement of the facts: the
prosecutors’ interpretation of the evidence or of a phenomenon. They could
just as well have said that a spirit produced the tracks and we would have
never noticed the difference. The only way that Anderson and Rennie can
introduce evidence in Science is by bringing the actual particle. Otherwise, all
they have is a statement of the facts: an assumption. And if they cannot even
illustrate their particle, for example, to explain how its architecture is related to
its behavior, then they have bypassed the Exhibits phase altogether. When
the mechanics claim that a positron is a fact, they are doing nothing less than
bullying the jury into swallowing their religion.
Like all scientific theories, the Theory of Evolution is comprised of fact and
opinion, evidence and theory, and we must learn not to confuse them. The
Darwinists confuse finding bones in a given layer of earth (facts and
evidence) with their interpretation of the finding (theory and proof). A fossil
is evidence of a fact (i.e., that something happened). How long it has been
there, why it is there, and whom these remains belong to are either
statements of fact or theories, but never facts. Even assuming that Gould
and Rennie prove to everyone on Earth that a bone is a million years old,
this theory will never become a fact. The reason for this is that theories
and facts pertain to different stages of the scientific method. In Science, a
juror may vote for a theory, but not for a fact. A fact differs from a theory in
that it is observer-free and belongs to the hypothesis stage. In Law, a
verdict is the fact-finder’s opinion with respect to a fact: a conclusion. In
Science, there are no ‘triers-offact’ or verdicts because facts are strictly
part of the assumptions. When we say that it is a fact that this cup is on
this table, we are not giving an opinion or asking for a verdict. We are
making a statement about a real film clip of the Universal Film. That this
cup is on this table is a fact. That you say that this cup is on the table is a
statement of the facts: an assumption. Both belong to the hypothesis. Why
 the cup is on the table (meaning HOW it got there – by what mechanical
process) is an issue that belongs to the hypothesis (if you are using it to
formulate an assumption) or to the theoretical stage of the scientific
method. You can believe the theory proposed by the prosecutor. Your
vote will not retroactively modify what actually occurred (true fact). If God
sweeps the floor, it won’t alter the fact that it was dirty a minute ago, even
in the case where He wipes the entire incident from everybody’s memory.

Fig. 2
Andersons Nobel Particle
What Anderson assumed,
So? Did the yet summarily converted footprint into a fact
What Anderson saw

The problem with the ‘confirmed’ particle proposal of Mathematical

Physics
is that after decades of toying with accelerators, the mathematicians are still
missing the most important
element that would allow them to make the sweeping claim Rennie takes for
granted. They are missing the
initial scene of the movie – Exhibit A

• the object that underlies their theory. It is this missing crucial frame of their
film that compels the mathematicians to make retroactive assumptions: that
they are staring at tracks and that the trace was carved by a particle. An
assumption is not a fact. An assumption is a statement of the facts: the
prosecutors’ interpretation of the evidence or of a phenomenon. They could
just as well have said that a spirit produced the tracks and we would have
never noticed the difference. The only way that Anderson and Rennie can
introduce evidence in Science is by bringing the actual particle. Otherwise, all
they have is a statement of the facts: an assumption. And if they cannot even
 illustrate their particle, for example, to explain how its architecture is related to
its behavior, then they have bypassed the Exhibits phase altogether. When
the mechanics claim that a positron is a fact, they are doing nothing less than
bullying the jury into swallowing their religion.
Like all scientific theories, the Theory of Evolution is comprised of fact and
opinion, evidence and theory, and we must learn not to confuse them. The
Darwinists confuse finding bones in a given layer of earth (facts and
evidence) with their interpretation of the finding (theory and proof). A fossil
is evidence of a fact (i.e., that something happened). How long it has been
there, why it is there, and whom these remains belong to are either
statements of fact or theories, but never facts. Even assuming that Gould
and Rennie prove to everyone on Earth that a bone is a million years old,
this theory will never become a fact. The reason for this is that theories
and facts pertain to different stages of the scientific method. In Science, a
juror may vote for a theory, but not for a fact. A fact differs from a theory in
that it is observer-free and belongs to the hypothesis stage. In Law, a
verdict is the fact-finder’s opinion with respect to a fact: a conclusion. In
Science, there are no ‘triers-offact’ or verdicts because facts are strictly
part of the assumptions. When we say that it is a fact that this cup is on
this table, we are not giving an opinion or asking for a verdict. We are
making a statement about a real film clip of the Universal Film. That this
cup is on this table is a fact. That you say that this cup is on the table is a
statement of the facts: an assumption. Both belong to the hypothesis. Why
the cup is on the table (meaning HOW it got there – by what mechanical
process) is an issue that belongs to the hypothesis (if you are using it to
formulate an assumption) or to the theoretical stage of the scientific
method. You can believe the theory proposed by the prosecutor. Your
vote will not retroactively modify what actually occurred (true fact). If God
sweeps the floor, it won’t alter the fact that it was dirty a minute ago, even
in the case where He wipes the entire incident from everybody’s memory.

A show of hands does not establish a fact

1.0 Facts are not established democratically The mathematicians have not
only confused the facts with a statement of the facts, but also with
theories. They have developed the notion that a fact is a theory which has
been voted by a self-appointed majority. “ For instance, I can make the
hypothesis that fire is hot. I put my hand into a fire and find it is hot. Now it
is a theory. If it is validated by many to the point of certainty then it is a
fact.”
[I sure hope for his sake that ‘the many’ validate the fact that ‘fire is hot’
before his hand turns to coal!]
“ A scientific fact is a scientific observation that is so accepted
that it becomes difficult to consider other interpretations of the
data.”
“ According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997, the
Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of
quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.” “ fact: an
observation statement accepted pragmatically and operationally as being true
…because the statement is subject to verification by many observers” These
statements indicate that the establishment perceives a fact to be a matter of
democracy and personal opinion. The greater the show of hands, the more a
theory approaches a fact. Where it is exactly that theory crosses the line into fact
we don’t know; perhaps at 50% + 1. What we can be sure of is that democracy
always conduces to tyranny of the many against the few. This does not result in
knowledge. It results in religion. The effect of democracy in Science is to protect
the beliefs and opinions of those in positions of power. The mainstream imposes
its will on dissidents. Science stagnates. Religion thrives. The generation is
convinced it knows everything. There is nothing more to learn. Theory is now 100
% fact. The powers that be have reached consensus.
A couple of examples serve to disintegrate the gross misconception that a fact
has something to do with a theory or with a show of hands:
• Is the theory that Jesus walked on water a fact because Christians are in the
majority?
• Should we conclude that the Earth is flat because the majority voted for this
‘theory’ 1000 years ago, or would the establishment prefer that we regard the
now discredited flat-
Earth hypothesis as an ‘untrue’ fact? What if we take the members of the Flat
Earth Society on a tour of the Moon and still they refuse to acknowledge that our
planet is spherical? Is it then not a fact that the Earth is spherical?
• If facts are confirmed ‘theories’ or ‘hypotheses,’ what should we do if an
obstinate juror refuses to believe that John is dead despite that his remains are
lying there before us? Is John being dead not a fact? Or would the peer
reviewers prefer to submit the matter to a vote? Some people with feeble brains
reply that a fact is a fact to those who believe it and not a fact to those who don’t.
Thus, God exists for me, but doesn’t exist for you. The flat Universe is a fact for
relativists, but not for Copernicus. And Jesus walking on water is a fact for
Christians, but not for Muslims.

This argument is okay in religion and in ordinary speech, but untenable in

science. It would amount to a futile discussion were something to be a fact for the
plaintiff but not for the defendant.
2.0 Solution to scientific subjectivity: Eliminate the observer Having distinguished
between a fact and a statement of the facts, how do the prosecutors
guarantee objectivity in a scientific statement of the facts? Certainly, if the
prosecutors had irrefutable evidence such as the ‘true’ facts, they wouldn’t
need a witness. We don’t need a witness to tell us that this glass is on this
table or that fire is hot. Nevertheless, a witness does not and cannot retain
every minor detail of an event.
Witnesses are notorious for peppering their testimonies with judgments that
tend to steer and sway the jury.
The statement ‘The red car rear-ended the blue car.’ is more subjective than
the statement ‘Two cars collided.’
Perhaps the witness did not intend to offer an opinion, but this was indeed the
effect. The former statement is subjective and may even be a theory. The
latter is more ideally what we expect from a statement of a fact.
Surely, witnesses forget, clip, or manipulate scenes inadvertently or when
they intend to lie. Can we recover unrecorded scenes through torture or
hypnosis? Would the prosecutors bet their lives on such confessions?
The answer is that a statement of the facts is always subjective. It can never
be a faithful narrative of what actually happened (i.e., a fact). Countless
minuscule events escape scrutiny and are lost forever. The human mind has
the ability to record only a tiny fraction of the gazillions of events that take
place during an occurrence and in the best of cases from a single
perspective. A film of every detail, of every atom, of every molecule in motion
would take as much time as the real event and consist of so many frames that
it would be impossible to record in any medium.
Regarding the (true) facts, the only way to guarantee that subjective opinions
do not color them is to produce the genuine fact: the actual occurrence. In
order to use the word fact consistently in a scientific courtroom, the definition
should make no provisions for opinions or beliefs. There is only one way to
guarantee factual objectivity in science: we must absolutely kill the observer!
Recall the popular scene where the detective rudely interrupts the ranting
witness “The facts ma’am, just the facts.” This, more or less, synthesizes the
scientific version of the word fact. Any definition of the word fact that implicitly
or explicitly includes opinionated testimony is restricted to ordinary speech. In
Physics, there are neither measurements nor observers.
fact, true fact, truth: Every minute detail of what actually is, was, happens, or
happened irrespective of witnesses or observers; A detailed film clip of an
actual event that conceptually includes every frame for that interval of the
Cosmic Movie. assumption, statement of the facts, lie: A subjective
statement from a witness concerning an event or an object. A statement of
the facts is either a description of an object or a narrative, an objective listing
(usually chronological) of a series of events. A particular interpretation of the
evidence or of an observation; The second phase of a scientific hypothesis.
evidence: The set of objects that the prosecutors introduce in support of their
statement of the facts. In science, evidence does not include testimony.
Evidence is part of the hypothesis stage of the scientific method and not of
the theory. Evidence is a subset of the Exhibits. Rates, ratios, and relations
do not constitute evidence for the purposes of science, but are rather
components of the statement of the facts.
Conceptually, evidence is a tiny subset of true facts, authentic, brief portions
of the Universal Film.
Of course, by rubbing out the witness, we summarily destroy Mathematical
Physics because its ‘bread and butter’ is measurement and observation.
Without their beloved witness, Mathematical Physics in its entirety
disintegrates like a castle of sand on the beach. To summarize, a hypothesis
is comprised of exhibits or evidence, definitions, and assumptions. These
three steps are necessary to introduce a scientific theory. Even a paper that is
written in time-less mode – for example one discussing a universal truth –
offers testimony. Therefore, written material always contains statements of
facts (and perhaps a fact here and there). A photograph of a knife is not the
same as the knife and doesn’t qualify as a true fact (i.e., evidence) in science.
A photograph of a knife is as much scientific evidence as testimony.
Assumptions underlie all recorded scientific theories (i.e., science). In
science, a fact is what actually occurred. A statement of the facts is what the
witness says that occurred. An observer sees less than what actually
happened, remembers a fraction of what she sees, and summarizes what
little she remembers during testimony (the important scenes). Different
observers tell different tales. A proponent typically presents evidence
(relevant physical objects) at the beginning of the presentation (i.e., during the
step called hypothesis).