ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Physics

A line is not the shortest distance between two points!

Updated on July 12, 2017

___________________

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

Submit a Comment

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 5 years ago

    "Objects just move around, and we explain such phenomena as best we can"

    .

    As long as we keep Science within its context, no one will get hurt. I promise.

    The point is that Science is NOT subjective. Science is entirely objective. Opinions are extra-scientific.Today, we have many opinions, accompanied by lots of censorship, and very little 'science'.

    .

    "Truth, proof, and evidence are elements of religion, not of Science. In Science, we do not persuade or convince, although it is human nature to do so. Everyone wants to impose their religion on others. But we must not lose sight that 'convincing' is not the purpose or business of Science. Science stops at explanation. What people choose to believe after the show is their personal business and doesn't concern Science.

    .

    A bone found in the middle of the rock is NOT evidence. It is JUST a bone. The theorist converts it into evidence to PERSUADE the juror to vote for him. Science is only interested in the explanation(s). One guy says this and the other says that. And we, the jurors, listen. Then, we adjourn, go home, have a beer, and think about what was said. We may even come up with our own theory. That's Science! Forming clubs, censoring those who threaten our religion, and talking about 'truth', 'proof' and 'evidence' is proselytizing. It means that the alleged 'scientist' has an agenda.

    .

    The reason the mathematical world uses the word 'proof' even in the context of facts such as 2+2= 4 is that there can be no challenges to the leaders. The next step is for them to tell you that it is 'true' and 'proven' that space is warped and that they smash 0D particles at the LHC to discover the particle of the concept 'mass'.

  • profile image

    Reasonable1 5 years ago

    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?

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 5 years ago

    "mathematical proofs"

    .

    There are no such things as 'proofs'. Proof means that the listener was convinced of an argument. It was 'proven' to HIM, not to the entire planet. There are people who don't care about the subject or don't understand the explanation and others who don't accept the proof. Does 'proof' mean that 100% of the humans that ever lived and will live bought and will buy into the 'fact'? How many people or what percentage of people does it take to declare something a 'proof'.

    The Mathematicians invented the word 'proof' and now use it to belittle those who disagree with their physical interpretations. Thus, warped space has been 'proven'. And 0D particles have been proven. Now they are trying to 'prove' the particle of the concept 'mass'. We have to stop using the word 'proof'. It has no place in Science. The word 'proof' belongs exclusively to religion. In Science, we don't prove (convince or attempt to convince someone). In Science, we explain. If the listener bought into the theory, it was 'proven' to HIM. the rest of the world may continue to be skeptic.

  • profile image

    hollow 5 years ago

    Are mathematical proofs also opinions?

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 5 years ago

    "Pythagorean theorem is true"

    .

    You're on an island with another castaway. You're both eating coconuts and engaging in small talk. You tell him that the Pythagorean Theorem is true.

    .

    He doesn't believe you.

    .

    You show him by drawing with a stick in the sand that it is always 'true'.

    .

    To make a long story short, after 6 months of discussions and enormous frustration on your part, he still doesn't believe you.

    .

    It turns out that you are the last two humans on Planet Earth. That means that half the population of Earth doesn't accept that the Pythagorean Theorem is 'true'.

    .

    You counter-argue that ALL mathematicians 'know' that the PT is 'true'. It has been 'proven' and no one at the Math Klub objects to it.

    .

    That just means that you belong to a small minority, an exclusive club that has now erected itself an image to worship.

    .

    But, let's get to the bottom of it. The PT is a STATIC relation, like pi, for instance. The PT is NOT a theory. A theory is about something that HAPPENED. You can theorize about WHY the vase broke: the dog wagged its tail and struck it from the table. I can believe (or not) that your explanation for this PHENOMENON is 'true'. If I do, it now becomes my religion. I accepted your EVIDENCE. Now we both are members of the same club. Another guy has another theory.

    .

    Static relations of nature, we DISCOVER. There is no theory about them, no explanation of WHY, what happened, or 'what caused it'. The PT is NOT a phenomenon, an event, an occurrence. It is more like stating that the elephant is pink.

    .

    Is this 'true'? is the elephant pink? Can we have an opinion about it?

    .

    Not in Science! In Science, we establish what wavelength gives us the color pink and agree that only that wavelength = pink. Then, it's a piece of cake. We need to ask no one or bring witnesses to testify at trial. We need not take anybody's word for granted. Either the elephant's skin has the matching wavelength or it doesn't.

  • profile image

    hollow 5 years ago

    "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.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 5 years ago

    "does it make sense to say that there are true and false statements in mathematics?"

    .

    Truth and falsity are OPINIONS. Truth and lies belong exclusively in religion, where people have already made up their minds. They have no place in Science. In Science, we merely explain... and do so rationally.

    .

    http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/02Sci/03SciRel....

    .

    Provide a statement of Math that is true and I'll show you that it has nothing to do with truth.

  • profile image

    hollow 5 years ago

    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.

  • profile image

    Kirui 6 years ago

    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.

  • profile image

    agentmarmite 6 years ago

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

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "parralel lines can intersect!"

    .

    ...And you can fit 'infinite' points between 2 points...

    .

    But it is more astounding when the idiots of Math extrapolate their idiocy onto Mathematical Physics and claim that a quark (which is a small part of the atom) weighs more than the entire atom...

    .

    http://www.ur.umich.edu/9394/May09_94/5.htm

    .

    People just swallow this nonsense because it comes from authority: the mathematicians who have usurped the high ground of 'physics'.

  • profile image

    Kirrui 6 years ago

    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.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 7 years ago

    "I wonder if those who buy into ideas like String Theory have a fundamental misunderstanding of geometry and math."

    They do. The word point is BOTH the object dot and the concept location. So the mathematician tells you that he can fit 'infinitely' many 'points' on a line (i.e., between two points).

    It's very simple to test the claim. I propose a line that is a meter long. The dot is 1 cm long. Is it possible to fit 'infinitely' many of these dots on that line?

    The mathematician now switches gears. He tells you that he wasn't talking about dots or even Geometry. He was talkng about locations (points) on an itinerary (line).

    What's this BS got to do with Geometry? How can this notion of 'point/line' be the basis of the GEOMETRIC theory called General Relativity? Is space-time a physical object or a succession of 'events' that move?

    So yes, the foundations are rotten to the core. Math Phyz in its entirety has to go!

    "they assume that concepts like point, line, plane, etc, have a basis in reality when they don't."

    Man invented ALL concepts (love, beauty, justice, energy, mass, force). Concepts are all artificial. Mother Nature recognizes no concepts. All she does is move atoms from one location to the next. Mother Nature ONLY recognizes and works with objects, shapes, surfaces.

    Therefore, it is unscientific to reify concepts such as energy and force and claim that we 'transfer' the former and 'carry' the latter. Science will have nothing to do with such euphemisms, poetry, and figures of speech. The prosecutor of a theory has to tell the crowd exactly what he means and not leave the jurors guessing.

    The main actor in a physical theory must be a physical object. Concepts cannot perform actions. The religion of Math Phyz is plagued by these dualities where concepts acquire life of their own. The mathematician moves a concept and claims to be explaining reality. When you put him up against a wall, he tells you that you need to take Math to understand (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

  • Mike360 profile image

    Mike360 7 years ago from The Milky Way

    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.