And then the
mathematicians  
invented fractions
of a dimension
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 03/02/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008

    Relativistic dimensions have so many properties that they confuse the experts beyond hope.  Theorists
    not only talk about curved and rolled-up dimensions and dimensions that grow. They have also
    proposed that you can have a fraction of a dimension.  

    So let's explain. By 'curled up', the relativist means that a particle returns to its starting point after
    having traveled a short distance.  Hence, curled-up is a synonym of size, and the argument shows that
    the mathematicians are not talking about dimensions. They are talking about motion, at best about
    vectors. Relativists are describing circular motion which, if quantified, becomes a curved number line.
    There is no contradiction because number lines don't have direction. A curve lacks one of the attributes
    of qualitative dimensions: pointing or facing. In Physics, we can perhaps declare that we accidentally
    dented the edge of a box, but never that we deliberately curled up its width!

    Likewise, when the numskulls of Math invoke the concept of fractal or fractional dimension, they are not
    referring to dimensions at all. A fractal (or capacity) dimension alludes to the exponent, the power to
    which we elevate a number. Since the idiots of Math call everything a dimension, they use this
    'exponent' notion as a synonym of length, width, and height when it suits their argument. They are
    forcefully extrapolating Math into Physics.

    An exponent is simply the number of times we multiply a number by itself. In the expression n(Є) = Є-D,
    the exponent D can be a non-integer such as 2.5. Relativists call this variable a dimension. Thus, they
    arrive at the misleading term fractional dimension or fractal. Clearly, this has nothing to do with the
    qualitative dimensions of Physics. Thus, they end up with amusing conclusions. One example is the
    Menger Sponge. It allegedly has a 'topological' dimension of 2.73, meaning that the idiot of Mathematics
    insinuates and wants you to believe that he is talking about geometry or with something to do with
    shape.

    "topological dimension: In mathematics, the Lebesgue covering dimension or
      topological dimension of a topological space is defined to be the minimum
      value of n, such that every open cover has a refinement in which no point is
      included in more than n+1 elements. If no such minimal n exists, the space is
      said to be infinite dimensional. [1]

    Now what could the word dimension possibly mean in this context? Can you perchance have 1.0
    length, 1.0 width, and 0.73 height? Obviously the idiots of topology are using the term dimension to
    confuse themselves thinking that they can stealthily and at their convenience sneak the notion that their
    dissertation is about geometric figures.

    " A line is one-dimensional because it has length... A plane is two-dimensional,
       since it has length and width... A box is three-dimensional: it has length, width
       and depth... If we divide a one-dimensional object in two smaller equal parts,
       we get two small versions of the same object... If we divide a 2 dimensional
       object in half its length and width, we get four copies of the same object... If we
       divide a 3 dimensional object in half its length, width and depth, we get eight
       copies of the same object... Now, let us do likewise with a fractal object as the
       Sierpinski triangle. If we divide it in half its height and base, we only get three
       copies (remember that the central portion do not belong to the triangle). Then,
       we need an exponent z such that 2^z = 3... The Sierpinski triangle is not one-
       dimensional because 3 is greater than 2, but it isn't two-dimensional because
       3 is less than 4. So, its dimension must lie between those two dimensions
       (1 and 2)."  [2]  

    What significance can such idiocy have in the real physical world? Is this what the idiots of Mathematics
    do to earn their living? Is this what they waste their time and your tax dollars on?

    Let's make it as clear as a crystal. In Topology, dimensions are powers, the exponent to which a number
    is elevated, the number of times or partial times it must be multiplied by itself. The Mathematicians end
    up with these ridiculous notions because they use the word dimension inconsistently within the same
    presentation. They talk about powers and insinuate that they're talking about length, width, and height.
    What should we call the 0.73 dimension? Height? Perhaps in the religion of Topology the Menger
    Sponge has 2.73 dimensions. For the purposes of Physics and Geometry, this cubic Swiss cheese is
    nothing but 3-D!

    You don't believe me? Manufacture it and I'll show you that it doesn't have 2.73 dimensions you stupid
    mathematical morons!
I whupped ya because my staff is
one-dimensional. Your scrawny
stick is barely a fractal.
From now on I'll call you Little Bill.
I hope the
water's
warm.
Little Bill
falling a fractal of the way


    Pages in this module:







    7.    This page:   And then the mathematicians  invented fractions of a dimension