Good to see you back, EP.
Thanks. Sorry I was away so long. I had some drinking, buying furniture and looking at houses to do. So, what do I think of the article you linked to...
Einstein uses little more than high school mathematics
That's incorrect on it's face. Special relativity require multi-dimensional math and Lorentz transformations. Not high school math, but really advanced specialize mathematics. This shows a basic misunderstanding of the math involved.
They truly reveal the Mind of God.
We have no frame of reference to know what the Mind of God is independent of the assertion. It could be revealing the mind of Captain Kangaroo for all we know.
With an astonishingly successful theory such as quantum mechanics, no one disagrees with the mathematics.
Quantum mechanics is not special relativity. In fact, one of the great challenges in particle and astrophysics right now is reconciling the two. Hasn't happened yet. This shows a basic misunderstanding of the state of astrophysics, relativity and quantum physics.
In contrast, conventional religions provide no commonly accepted platform - do Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same God, as some of them claim, or three utterly different gods, as others claim?
Agreed. Mysticism, religion and spirituality can't agree on what anything means or even is. In contrast, even in science, even if you don't agree that that gravitational acceleration on earth is 32 feet/second^2, it's it is empirically observable and you will fall even if you don't believe in gravity.
"Believing" is what you do when you haven't a clue how to analyze something mathematically.
Utter bollocks. You don't beleive and try to find math to fit. You observe and try to find find math that fits the observation, not your belief. Beleiving and finding math or a hypothesis to fit is called "confirmation bias" and science does everything it can to remove pre-conceived desires for certain results.
Brilliant scientists, for example, refuse to accept dimensionless existence where physical dimensions shrink to zero and time stops, and infinite quantities which they believe would somehow tear nature apart or render it incomprehensible.
Who refuses to beleive it? Is there evidence that fits in the scientific method that shows it to be true? Citation needed on this assertion.
Yet, over and over again, the mysteries of life are seen to revolve around zero and infinity, which are just the flip sides of each other.
Citation needed.
It's often thought that mathematics deals with the hypothetical and physics with the real, but one thing is becoming relentlessly clearer: mathematics, the queen of science, is more real than physics.
This shows a basic misunderstanding of the relationship between math and physics. Physics is underpinned and requires math. We often know what to look for in physics based on math, the Higgs-Boson, for example, and black holes.
In previous articles, we discussed how quantum particles are so astoundingly small, so much smaller than any human mind could ever conceive, so close to being dimensionless, to being "nothing", that they cannot be properly understood unless it is recognised that they flicker between dimensional and dimensionless existence.
Discussing something has nothing to do with it being true. I could discuss all day long how I am most capable and sought after lover on the planet. Discussing it, however, has nothing to do with how true it is. The statement makes no sense. Just because it is mind boggling small doesn't mean dimensionless.
Einstein's theory says nothing less than that all photons are, in their frame of reference, outside space and time.
No, it doesn't. At all. One of the implications of SR is that speed is directly related time dilation, but, time dilation is relative to the frame of reference. And if they are outside of space, how I can I see light since I am IN space?
Even if there were an infinite number of photons, they would all inhabit this inconceivable singularity beyond the reach of time and space.
Since a singularity is a black hole and photons cannot overcome the gravity (hence why it is a black hole), it's plainly obvious that photons do NOT inhabit a singularity as I have a lamp on my desk spewing photons all over the room.
I am not going to go much further in the article since, from the beginning, it's a mixture of misunderstanding, unfounded assertion and misunderstanding of the words he uses.
In short, utter crap.