1.0   How the mathematicians use the infinitesimal point to their advantage in Physics

    Just about every prosecutor in Mathematical Physics uses the infinitesimal dot to peddle his theories.
    The presenter typically begins the presentation by pointing to a 2-D dot. No one has any trouble
    visualizing this simple object. The trouble is that for the remainder of the presentation the theorist
    gives lip service to the dot he introduced at the exhibits phase. More often, the individual giving the
    presentation works in reverse. The prosecutor just tells you that he did not bring his props or that he
    has nothing to show because a point is 0-D. Then he does his presentation with an infinitesimal
    (i.e. 2-D or 3-D) dot.

    For example, the particle physicist tells his audience that a subatomic particle is 0-D. During the
    presentation, he uses the infinitesimal dot. The geometer does it again the other way around. He
    marks a 2-D dot on the board and asks you to assume that it isn’t really there, that it is just a location.
    Then he constructs circles and other planes with it. The final presentation is given by the topologist.
    He shows you a dot, and constructs the '2-D' surface of his 3-D sphere with ordered pairs.

    Let's run it by again in slo-mo for the benefit of the mathematical crowd.

    1. The particle physicist tells the students that, unfortunately, a particle is so small that he
        couldn’t bring one to class today:

    “ particle: A body whose spatial extent and internal motion and structure, if any, are
        irrelevant in a specific problem.”   [1]

     “ The SM particles are considered to be point-like”  [2]

       Then he assures the students that he accelerates this non-entity in his lab:

    “ Accelerator: A device (i.e., machine) used to produce high-energy high-speed beams
        of charged particles, such as electrons, protons”  [3]

    2. The cosmologist claims that before the Universe came into existence, there was nothing:

    “ At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero size” (p. 117)  [4]

       Then suddenly, an infinitesimal dot appears in the second frame of the film. Relativists assure
        you that this is not magic or religion. They call it science. If you ask them how this dot came
        into existence from absolutely nothing, they tell you to see a philosopher. They allege that the
        question doesn’t concern science because they can’t prove anything beyond this temporal
        barrier:

    “ If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens
        at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no
        observational consequences.” (pp. 8-9)  [4]

    3. The mathematical theorist does it differently. He exhibits a 2-D point at the start of his   
        presentation. This point is implicitly a 3-D solid, for example a photon interacting with matter
        or with an electron.

    “ Point-like subatomic particles trace lines and interact with each other.” (p. 329) [5]  

       The theorist has no choice but to transform this physical object into a non-dimensional
        concept in order to give a supernatural or lame physical interpretation to a phenomenon:

    “ Question: Why don't photons collide with each other when traveling towards each
       other? Answer: Photons in free space act almost  exclusively as waves.”  [6]

    [I thought that the wave instantly converts to a particle upon collision.  If the photon
     is a wave and the electron is a wave, how do they manage to collide during the
     photoelectric effect? How does a wave physically morph into a particle?]

    “ Tunneling is the quantum mechanical process by which a particle can penetrate a
       classically forbidden region of space (for example, passing from two separate points
       A and B without passing through intermediate points)."  [7]

    [So how does the particle physically dig through to the other side? By what physical
       mechanism does a discrete particle convert into an infinite wave?]

    “ quantum mechanical objects do not behave like classical objects such as balls. On
       a quantum scale, objects exhibit wavelike behavior. For a quantum particle moving
       against a potential energy 'hill', the wave function describing the particle can extend
       to the other side of the hill.” [7]

    [Of course, then some idiot will parrot this idiotic statement  and say something stupid
     like, ‘Don’t you know? Scientists have confirmed tunneling in the lab. It never dawns
     on him that 'scientists' probably have reached the wrong conclusions for the last 100
     years as a result that they insist on modeling everything with particles!’]

       Tunneling is a surrealistic physical interpretation of the idiots of the establishment. This
        interpretation is worthless because it assumes that electrons and ‘photons’ are
        simultaneously particles AND waves. The word ‘tunneling’ insinuates that a particle went
        through a hole. This is what mentally sane humans understand by tunneling. The
        mathematicians instead explain that a wave stretches to the other side. Their analogy
        insinuates that a gofer drilled a hole through a wall, but the theory is that the bubble gum  
        stretched across the finish line.

        Of course, if we are allowed to amend our assumptions retroactively, we can explain
        anything. The scientific method requires that the prosecutor exhibit a mockup of a photon
        at the start of his presentation and use it consistently to explain his theory. The
        mathematicians do it differently. They self-servingly tell you in retrospect -- after they've
        finished their experiment -- what they  were talking about for the last two hours. The
        mathematician tells you that the nature of light depends on the experiment you run.  [8]  
        He points to both a dot and a wave at the end of his dissertation and tells you that he can
        explain the results of his experiment with both of these entities.

    4. The geometer illustrates a 2-D dot to his students and asks them to make believe that it is a
        non-dimensional location. He uses a series of these locations to ‘construct’ a physical, 1-D
        line:

    “ In Discrete Geometry, a point is a dot. Lines are composed of an infinite set of dots
       in a row.”  [9]

    “ point: A dot that indicates a definite position or location. A point has no width, depth,
       or length.”  [10]

    “ point: 0-dimensional mathematical object, which can be specified in n-dimensional
       space using n coordinates…The basic geometric structures of higher dimensional
       geometry--the line, plane, space, and hyperspace--are all built up of infinite numbers
       of points arranged in particular ways. ”   [11]

       Then, the geometer touches circles and spheres with this line:

    “ Tangent line: A line that touches but does not cross a curve at a given point.” [12]

    [How is it possible for the tangent line to touch a curve at a point if the line, the circle,
     and the sphere are comprised of 0D points?]

    5. The topologist takes the geometer's 1-D line, swings it around a dot, thus painting a 2-D swath
        he calls circle, and magically disintegrates it before your very eyes at the end of the show.
        When all is said and done, a circle is comprised of ‘discrete’ non-dimensional locations! What
        is located at these locations? Why, what else but an ordered pair!

    “ circle: the set of points in a plane that are equidistant from a given point O. ...
       point: a 0-dimensional mathematical object”  [13] [14]

       Of course, with so many inconsistent definitions, interpretations, and usages the students
        come out of the class with grave doubts about the physical nature of the famous infinitesimal
        point, but since this set of definitions comes in handy to explain it all, everyone reveres this
        particular geometric figure which, for reasons unknown, cannot be defined!


    2.0   For the purposes of Science, geometric figures and objects are not made of points

    One final thing I should address is that the mathematicians have developed the misconception that
    geometric figures such as cubes and spheres are made of infinitesimal points (i.e., structural dots).

    “ The basic geometric structures of higher dimensional geometry — the line, plane,
       space, and hyperspace — are all built up of infinite numbers of points arranged
       in particular ways.”  [15]

    “ In mathematics generally, particularly in topology, any form of space is considered
       as  made up of points as basic elements.”  [16]

    “ A sphere is defined as the set of all points in three-dimensional Euclidean space R3
       that are located at a distance r(the ‘radius’) from a given point (the ‘center’).”  [17]

    These statements could not be further from the truth. In Science, every object in the Universe is
    conceived to be made of a single piece. When we point to a horse and say ‘horse,’ we are not yet
    preoccupied with the fact that it is missing a leg. Only when we point to a sphere and say ‘sphere,’ is
    the sphere treated as an object. Any use other than this treats the sphere as a concept. Hence, when
    I point to a sphere and say ‘sphere,’ it is premature to ponder whether a sphere is made of metal or to
    entertain questions such as ‘How did the blacksmith forge it?’ We will watch those movies later if we
    have time. In fact, we will watch them after using adjectives to describe the object first. For example:
    a sphere is solid (as opposed to hollow), blue, round/ curved, continuous, symmetric, etc. For now,
    please just look at the statue and repeat after me: ‘sphere.’ We need to visualize the object the word
    sphere designates before we can describe the object or use the word to explain a phenomenon of
    nature. The object sphere is comprised neither of infinitesimal points nor atoms. The object sphere
    only has shape and contour. It has so whether you’re looking at it or not. The concept sphere is a
    different matter.

    “ The concept of the center of mass allows us to describe the movement of a system of
       particles by the movement of a single point.”  [18]

    “ Not a pinhead size, or any size, but a literal point, zero wide, zero high, zero deep. We
       cannot imagine such a thing, but physics says that is what happens, and that is a
       black hole, matter that is so dense it is no longer 'matter' in any real sense, but some
       kind of singularity (or anomaly) in space.” [19]

    These mathematicians are insinuating that they are referring to a physical object. They are actually
    talking about an abstract concept. Physics and Geometry only deal with objects.
The infinitesimal point

(continued...)
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist


I can't see
worth shit
anyways, so
who cares?
The reason you can't see
this infinitesimal point is
that it is
zero-dimensional.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008