The realm of mathematics is extraordinarily wide… it can, in principle,  cover anything which <<has some kind of pattern>>. But this pattern’s extraordinary range should not tempt us into thinking that it covers everything. Of course it doesn’t. Most of the actions we see around us are not ‘predictable’.  A bird suddenly flaps its wings and takes to the air… a first drop of rain falls onto a windscreen… a cloud suddenly blocks the ferocious heat of the Sun and lets cool air resume… a flower suddenly blooms in a crack of brickwork…

 The Grand Mathematic Fallacy (GMF) is that <<Maths covers everything which could possibly happen>>.  Maths has a huge domain, but…the patterns it is composed of are necessarily static, timeless patterns. Rene Descartes made some progress when he showed how it (maths) could give an account of activity and motion… by treating time as a nominal dimension, and using our innate powers of envisualising… to imagine a changing maths-describable scene. This gambit of treating time as a dimension seemed at the time to enlarge the realm of maths. But time isn’t a kind of “space” because “space” implies room to wander-around in. And we have no such freedom. We can’t see the future —it constantly surprises us with “the news”— and we certainly cannot change what happened in the past.  This extension of maths to cover “change”, “activity” and “motion” has to be limited to the strictly predictable kind.

So the GMF is nonsense.

Isaac Newton could use the new Cartesian approach to establish his laws of gravitation, but they were officially scuppered in 1919 when Albert Einstein began to treat time as if it were an extra dimension of space. Not only was Einstein totally unaware of the dire social implications of his notion (in turning our lives into paralysed, doomed, pre-determined straitjackets), but the changes in the behaviour of light which he discovered were tiny. NASA has not used Einsteinian dynamics for its hundreds of deep space probes: and the Newtonian Dynamics it has used has been perfectly reliable.

So when it was discovered in 1919 that light “bent” as it passed near the Sun, it was not the huge revolution it was supposed to be… it was not really a regime change in science. Newspapers across the advanced world had huge headlines <Newton Disproved!>.  But when it came to using dynamics in space —where accuracy was essential—  Newton was vindicated.  It must have been the utter demoralisation caused by WW1 which led the shell-shocked savants of the West to enthusiastically jump to conclusions. Einstein’s theory was bereft of “relativity”, it was 100% rigid, timeless statis.

COMMENTs:  email per4group@gmail.com   CHRISTOPHER ORMELL around 1^st August 2026