Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

Length and distance
are not synonyms for the
purposes of Science

    1.0   The mathematicians say that length and distance are synonyms

    Einstein tried his hand at a definition of distance and failed miserably. Like all mathematicians, he
    confused distance with length:

    “ Distance denotes a rigid body on which two material points (marks) have been
       specified.”  [1]

    [NOT! ]

    [No Al. You are not defining distance. You are defining length! I recommend
     holding Al back another year in kindergarten until he learns the fundamentals
     of Physics.]

    If Einstein is going to invoke a body, meaning a physical object, he is not talking about distance.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/25/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
I have no idea what
you're talking about,
Bill. In relativity,
length and distance
are synonyms.

    2.0   Length is to matter what distance is to space

    Matter is said to consist mainly of empty space:

    “ A cloud of tiny negatively-charged electrons envelopes the nucleus,
       but at a relatively large distance, so that much of the volume of an
       atom is empty space.” [9]

    “ Ordinary matter, or the stuff we and everything around us is made of,
       consists largely of empty space. Even a rock is mostly empty space.” [10]

    In spite of this, the mathematicians do not subtract the 'space bubbles' from the length of the table.
    They treat the table as if it were a continuous object: made of a single chunk of matter. Length is a
    property restricted to physical objects and is conceptually 'made' of a single piece. We can chop the
    ruler in half, but not its length. We don't slice concepts with a chain-saw. We cut physical objects, you
    know, like trees and chairs and heads, with a saw. For the purposes of Physics, length is indivisible.

    Conversely, distance is a property we assign to space. Therefore, if a physical object is conceptually
    continuous and space is what interrupts this continuity, it follows that space is what is really
    discontinuous. It is space which enables objects to be discrete. Without space, the entire Universe
    would be a single block of infinite matter! Ironically, the mathematicians have concluded exactly the
    opposite:

    “ In general relativity, space-time is assumed to be smooth and continuous- and
       not just in the mathematical sense.” [11]

    However, you should not lose sight of the context. In Science, we use adjectives (such as
    discontinuous) to modify objects. We use the opposites of these adjectives to characterize space       
    (e.g., discontinuous, transparent, intangible). This is simply a convention having roots in our peculiar
    vernacular. We could just as well argue that adjectives should be circumscribed to objects and not be
    applicable to space. Certainly, space cannot be white, big, flat, or three-dimensional.

    So what does the word distance mean for the purposes of Physics? How can we use this word
    consistently in a dissertation (i.e., scientifically)?

    If you look the word up in the dictionary or ask anyone on the street, you get pretty much the intuitive
    ‘physical’ definition of the word distance:

    “ the extent or amount of space between two things, points, lines, etc.; the state
       or fact of being apart in space, as of one thing from another”  [12]

    This definition contains the essence of what distance means in Science. For the purposes of Physics,
    length is to matter what distance is to space. Distance refers to the absence of matter: to the void
    between two objects (Fig. 1). Length is what ONE object has; distance is what it doesn't.  Distance is
    what stands between TWO objects! In Physics, we talk about the length of the ruler and the distance
    between two telephone poles.

    length: Continuous matter lying between two surfaces.

    distance: The space between two surfaces. A discontinuity in matter.

    Therefore, for the purposes of Physics length is not the same as distance and this should be pointed
    out to the idiots of Mathematics. They need to be re-educated if they are ever to understand anything
    about Physics. It can no longer be tolerated for graduates to make such basic errors.

    In short, distance refers to the separation between TWO objects. This is what a sane human being
    understands by distance. Distance insulates objects because it is a subset of space, yet distance and
    space are not identical or synonymous. Whereas space is the ubiquitous background that contours
    matter, distance is the particular space that separates any TWO surfaces. Distance separates two
    particular faces. In contrast, space contours each object all around. Unlike space, distance embodies
    direction and is conceptually the extension from one side of an object to another. If we use a single
    point lying on an object as a reference, the point is effectively assumed to be structural (i.e., a dot) and
    to possess a face. The mathematicians may argue that they can use a point-particle as the center of
    mass of an object. They may not use the point-particle as a physical entity that is separated by
    distance from another one. There is no such notion as distance between locations. In Physics, we
    may only talk about distance between objects. Distance is unimaginable between zero-dimensional
    (0D), face-less concepts such as point particles and locations.

    Distance also differs from space in that it is an artificial concept. Distance is a notion we conceived.
    Space was there even before God was around.
distance
length
You see, Bill. In Mathematics we
determine the length from front to back by
measuring the distance the sword travels.
That's great, Steve,
but wouldn't it have
been easier on Al if
you had  measured
the length of his
neck with this cloth
instead?
We have no use for a stick in
Mathematics, Bill! We measure length
and distance by counting the
footprints we make with our bare feet.

Fig. 1   Length vs. distance
The word 'length' refers to the continuous matter lying between two surfaces of
ONE object. The word 'distance' refers to a region  devoid of matter: to the space
that separates TWO surfaces. Length is to matter what distance is to space. Both
length and distance are conceptually static.

    The fanatics of the religion of Mathematical Physics today make the same mistake as their mentor.
    They claim that the words length and distance are synonymous:

    “ In the physical sciences and engineering, the word ‘length’ is typically
       used synonymously with ‘distance’ ” [2]

    On the one hand, the mathematicians define length as the ‘distance’ between two points:  

    " Length, of a straight line segment, the distance between its end points" [3]

    " length: the longest extent of anything as measured from end to end...The linear
       distance between two points. " [4]

    " Length is defined as the straight-line distance between two points along
       an object." [5]

    On the other, they define distance in terms of 'length':

    " The distance between two points is the length of a straight line between them.” [6]

    " distance: The length of the line segment joining two points. A straight line
       segment is the shortest distance between two points." [7]

    " The one-dimensional parallelepiped is called distance" (p. 20) [8]

    Of course, if relativists rely on circular definitions and synonyms, they will never understand Physics.
    If in 4000 years, our absent-minded mathematicians have not figured out that there is a non-trivial,
    qualitative difference between length and distance, what can you expect from the physical
    interpretations these morons derive from equations that deal with these parameters?

    Therefore, before we say another word, we need to show the mathematical establishment the error of
    their ways. We must establish a clear difference between length and distance. We will otherwise be
    unable to discuss issues such as length contraction in a rational manner.