** Hubbard Talks about Math, Physics, Neural Science.** Hubbard failed all math- related courses for very simple reason -- he could not grasp mathematical concepts, his Philadelphia Doctorate Course shows that (it is quite ironic that the course is called “Doctorate”)

This is how “the greatest scientist” describes the difference between Differential and Integral Calculus:

“As you look through the book, you'll find in the early part of the book on Calculus, "dx" over "dy", a little "dx", and a little "dy" -- and one's above the other on a line -- predominates in the front part of the book, but as you get to the end of the book you find these "dx" and "dy"s preceded by a summation sign, or are equating to a summation sign, and the presence of this shows that we are in the field of Integral Calculus“.

This sounds like a silly joke, but Hubbard is serious about this because he admits that he could not understand even the simplest mathematical ideas:

“Now I hope you understand this, because I've never been able to make head nor tail of it. It must be some sort of a Black Magic operation, started out by the Luce cult -- some immoral people who are operating up in New York City, Rockefeller Plaza -- been thoroughly condemned by the whole society. Anyway, their rate-of-change theory -- I've never seen any use for that mathematics”

Not only Hubbard says that he is incapable of understanding the math, but he also brags about his mathematical handicap. This is exactly what a smart conman would avoid doing -- he does not want his audience to think that he is a complete idiot. But Hubbard does not care about making a fool of himself in front of a gathering of people, which shows mental retardation.

Finally Hubbard arrives at the most stunning conclusion that I have heard so far -- the math does not work in this universe:

“Calculus -- if you want to know -- there is room there for a mathematics which is a good mathematics. And it would be the rate of co-change, or the rate of change when something else was changing, so that you could establish existing rates of change in relationship to each other, and for lack of that mathematics, nobody has been able to understand present time -- you just can't sum it up easily -- or let us say, for lack of an understanding of what present time was, nobody could formulate that mathematics. So, actually there's a big hole there that could be filled -- a thing called calculus is trying to fill that hole, right now, and it can't.”

And who’s to blame for this poor math? Newton, of course!

“But the rates of change -- it comes closest to it. I think it was one of Newton's practical jokes. Here we have Calculus, and it's trying to measure a rate of change. Well, if we had something that was really workable and simple, it would be formed on this basis. The present time, and gradients of time were gradients of havingness, and as one havingness changed, you could establish a constancy of change for other related havingnesses“.

In the end Hubbard becomes completely incoherent when he introduces a concept of havingness, which is totally out of this word. Incoherent speech is a clear sign of mental deficiency. Our retard came up with the craziest ideas, as usual.

http://www.rr.cistron.nl/xenu/quotes.htm Regardless of his occupation, a normal person is capable of understanding basic facts about the universe. But this observation does not apply to Hubbard -- our idiot’s “understanding” of the universe is a gross misunderstanding of simple empirical data.

Hubbard’s term is the MEST (mass, energy, space, time) universe. But all high school students know that there are only three independent variables in physics - length (space), time and mass. Energy is not independent variable, and so are not temperature, density, velocity, etc. Hubbard could have called his creation MTST (mass, temperature, space, time) universe, MDST (mass, density, space, time) universe, etc -- any combination of independent and dependent variables goes. The right term would be MST (mass, space, time) universe. But Hubbard was so incredibly stupid that he cannot distinguish dependent variables from independent ones.

In his sci-fi novel, Volume I of Mission Earth, Hubbard describes black holes as sources of energy. But nowadays even a 5-th grader knows that black holes absorb energy without emitting it. Hubbard’s stupidity prevented him from giving correct description of a black hole.

A Hubbard supporter might say that Hubbard never claimed that events described in Mission Earth are real, so his definition of the black hole is not an indicator of stupidity. However, it is known to all sci-fi readers that the writers follow physics concepts very strictly without trying to alter or twist them. Hubbard saw scientific descriptions of black holes but was unable to understand them, which shows that he was a complete idiot incapable to grasp even the simplest scientific ideas.

Below is a correct definition of the space:

“Space: the volume in which all celestial bodies, including earth, move”

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms.

This is how Hubbard defines space:

“The definition of space is 'a viewpoint of dimension “

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=33541&start=45

Space consists of three dimensions (lengths), therefore it is logically incorrect to define “space” via “dimensions” that constitute space -- this logical fallacy called vicious circle. Properly interpreted, Hubbard’s definition of space is equivalent to this definition, “space is how one sees space”, which is gibberish. Only a person with extremely low intelligence could give such obtuse definition of space.

Hubbard the Neurological Scientist wrote the following “masterpiece”:

“It is clear that the object is often of interest to us for some special characteristics of immediate usefulness or value. If we enquire as to the neurological processes involved in registering the object, we find that the nervous system has abstracted, from the infinite numbers of sub-microscopic characteristics of the event, a large but finite number of macroscopic characteristics. In purchasing a 'pencil' we usually are not interested in its smell or taste. But if we were interested in these abstractions, we would have to find the smell and the taste of our object by experiment“.

First of all, the number of all characteristics is not infinite but finite because the number of variables used to describe a physical object is finite; these variables include size, weight (mass), density, valence, temperature, wavelength (color), etc. Measurement of infinite number of characteristics would require infinite time, as every scientist knows. Therefore, it is commonly accepted that the number of characteristics used to describe an object is finite.

A nervous system cannot abstract anything from sub-microscopic characteristics because it cannot perceive objects on sub-microscopic level; it cannot register objects even on molecular level, as everyone, except for Hubbard, knows. Of course, if someone sees objects on sub-microscopic level in his hallucinations the way Hubbard saw his body cells (see one of my previous posts) then he would accept Hubbard’s description of the workings of nervous system.

Hubbard’s inability to understand simple scientific concepts shows profound mental retardation. Yes, my friends, Hubbard was a cretin!

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?28308-Hubbard-Talks-about-Math-Physics-Neural-Science.