- HubPages
*»* - Education and Science
*»* - Physics

# A line is not the shortest distance between two points!

**___________________**

**The Rope Hypothesis** - An alternative to waves, particles and wave-packets

(Comments have been disabled in all my hubs. If you wish to leave a comment go to Rational Scientific Method.)

**___________________**

*The line of Mathematics is one of the Seven Wonders of the Intellectual World. For unexplained reasons, the mathematicians can't define exactly what it is, but they can explain anything with it.*

____________________

**Will the real line please stand up?**

Is a line a stick or an itinerary? Is it a geometric figure or a moving dot? Is a line a series of apples, locations, numbers? How many dimensions does a line have? Can a geometric figure only have length or be infinite? Is a line continuous? Made of discrete segments? Straight?

The mathematicians claim that they cannot define the word line because it would otherwise lead to circular arguments. They prefer to plow ahead and use the line to support their theories while insinuating that you should know what they're talking about.

Well? What ARE we talking about? What is it that we have before us?

It seems that what we have *objectively* on the board is a two-dimensional, elongated rectangle. Is this lackluster figure the line of Mathematics?

## What we objectively have before us: a 2D elongated rectangle

The mathematicians allege that the line of Math is a wee bit more sophisticated. It has evolved considerably since the days of Euclid. The stick you are staring at is for babies. The line of Math is an exciting series of locations. It 'represents' motion. We are supposed to read into it what isn't plainly there. You are supposed to use your imagination, not your eyes.

Unfortunately for the mathematicians, Science is not in the business of deceiving audiences. A scientific dissertation has to be straight forward, without hidden meanings or unclear insinuations. Metaphor, euphemism, and figures of speech are out. Poetry is unacceptable in formal Science. The presenter points and says "line", and the audience sees a stick. What we have *objectively* before us is an elongated, two-dimensional rectangle. The finite geometric figure you are staring at is neither a series of location nor 'infinite' nor 1D!

The reason the mathematicians sidestep the definition of the geometric line is not a mystery. If the mathematical line alludes to an itinerary, it is not a part of Geometry, and if it consists of a series of dots, it is irrational to equate the line with numbers or with motion. Thus, the mathematicians have concocted several definitions and use them as needed to explain all of their theories, jumping back and forth, from one to another to parry the attacks of skeptics. The malleable line of Mathematics is unscientific because it cannot be used consistently. This explains why the mathematicians have never been able to define the word line precisely and prefer to tell you that it is a primitive term.

** **

**What does the line of Mathematics have to do with Physics?**

The mathematicians excuse themselves saying that they cannot use the dull stick of Geometry object to sell snake oil to the masses.

The answer is that science doesn't care whether a mathematician can use the line of Geometry. This is objectively what we have before us. If the mathematicians can't use the genuine line, they should call a spade a spade! If they are referring to an itinerary they should call it an itinerary and NOT a line. If they are alluding to a series of locations they should call the aggregate *motion* or simply "a series of locations" and NOT a "line". By labeling a series of locations as a 'line', the mathematician intentionally misleads the juror and unjustifiably blends Mathematics with Physics. What (s)he sketches on the board are dots and what you see is a stick, but what (s)he means and insinuates is something else. You are supposed to assume that these dots represent locations. You are asked to participate in an unholy conspiracy known as reification: replacing concepts with objects. Yet (s)he continues to call 'it' a line and tells you that (s)he can scan it to make a geometric figure known as a square or that you can fit infinite dots between any two dots that make up the line!

So? Was the line used to 'construct' the square an itinerary? Was it a location, a number, or a physical dot what we were trying to fit between two 'points'?

The word* line* should be deleted from the dictionary of Science, among other reasons, because we don't need the word *line* to explain any phenomenon of nature. There are no such things as lines out there, much less if they are specified to be one-dimensional. And if the only purpose of the stick is to 'represent' an itinerary, which then is incongruously used to 'construct' a geometric figure, we can just call 'it' an itinerary. How's that for consistency?

______________

.

.

## Comments

I think what Bill means is that math (and all branches of logic) are tautological. People mistake this for objective, or absolute or something. Logic is whatever we define it to be as long as it resolves to its base axioms. It's self-defined. It's artificial. It's subjective (requires human observers).

So, 2+2=4 is a fact only. Not a truth, never a theory.

If I invent a branch of logic that says' Aardvark = A' and 'Baboon = B', and A+B=5, then that's my business. Someone either agrees or doesn't.

It's tricky because logic does have to be consistent, internally. But it's just a binary trick.

Science is so unique because it's NOT tautologous — it deals directly with nature (reality). Objects just move around, and we explain such phenomena as best we can.

Ain't that right, Mr Bill?

Are mathematical proofs also opinions?

"Truth and falsity are OPINIONS. Truth and lies belong exclusively in religion, where people have already made up their minds."

Do they have a place under MATH? For eg Pythagorean theorem is true under Euclidean geometry.

There are only rational and irrational theories in science, but does it make sense to say that there are true and false statements in mathematics? For eg pi is rational would be false.

Mathematics is clearly unmasked when you fully realise that it is a mere counting business! You say something about measurement and counting. Now, it is realy tricky. I thought about it and realise that measuring legth with a ruler is just counting blocks! It took me a while to realise this small trick! You realise this quickly if you are given a ruler with the strait marks only and no numbers indicated. So a ruler is just a tool that makes counting easier! The manufacture did it for you. But as you say, the mathematician's answere to 'what is legth' is actually an 'how much' answere. It is number of blocks needed to cover that legth. 'how much' demand that we already know what we are counting. But i tell you it is trickier than you may think. Even more, the importance of differentiating legth with what we choose to call it 'its amount' I have learn something from you. It is simple if they realise that measurement is a form of counting.

And, I would claim, the brain rotting tedium and propaganda that 10 to 12 years of forced government "schooling" does to children's minds.

Worst is when they say that mathematics is irrifutable. I see you attack so much on definition trickery of mathematics. It is healty when we recognice mathematics for what it is; a collection of counting tactics. There is another beast called axioms. They say we know a line so we don't define. This is the definition problem. But then they also say we know that parralel lines can intersect! So we don't need to proof this. This is the axiom problem. Mean while, they still insist that mathematics is irifutable. It is a unique science with is not subject to experiments. It is our intuition which has a problem. Little do they see that mathematics is a great house with no foundations as far as reality is concern. It is a gabbage in gabbage out subject which add no knowledge about reality.

I wonder if those who buy into ideas like String Theory have a fundamental misunderstanding of geometry and math. Granted that they can perform mathematical calculations far better than I ever could; they assume that concepts like point, line, plane, etc, have a basis in reality when they don't. They are just labels that humanity has constructed to explain and predict observations and events - and these labels have limitations.

14