| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
One of the most intuitive notions that mathematicians have in the back of their minds is that an object is what is comprised
of matter. This means that an object is that which has mass and occupies space. Mathematically, this version of object is
expressed with concepts such as mass and volume:
- “ the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed…
something that occupies space” [1]
“ matter: Anything that occupies space, has mass, and possesses inertia.” [2]
“ All matter is composed of tiny particles (atoms or molecules)” [3]
“ All matter has mass, which is a measure of the quantity of matter. And all matter has
volume, which is a measure of the space that matter takes up.” (p. 3) [4]
Actually, this is what the word matter means to the idiots of Mathematics. It is not what the word matter means in Physics.
Nevertheless, the establishment doesn’t use these definitions of the word matter consistently. Routinely you will read idiotic
statements in the ‘scientific’ literature that blatantly violate these foundations. The proponents allege that there are objects
that have mass, but don’t occupy space, or that neither have mass nor occupy space:
- “ The photon is one of the elementary particles…photons have zero rest mass” [5]
“ point particle: It's distinguishing features are that it does not have any volume or
surface area; it is zero dimensional. [6]
“ black hole: A massive astrophysical object… The gravitational forces are so strong
in a black hole that they… collapse to a point (known as a singularity)” …“singularity:
A singularity has a set mass but an infinitely small (zero) volume” [7]
[Forces collapse to a point? An infinitely small volume is a zero volume? What do these
people put in their coffee? How can they be so stupid?]
So, aside from the fact that the mathematical physicists haven’t reached an agreement, the decision of whether mass and
volume qualify as acceptable parameters depends on their definitions. I have already shown that mass and volume are not
synonymous with object, but hopefully all objects possess these properties.
| Newton says that an object is that which has mass and occupies space |
| No, I have no mass and I don't occupy space. I just get lonely women pregnant. |
- Module main page: Is an object a bundle of properties?
1. Frege says that a variable is an object
2. Russell says that an object is that which is one
3. Lavoisier says that an object is that which cannot be destroyed
4. This page: Newton says that an object is that which has mass and occupies space
5. Plato says that an object is that which is ideal
6. Bohr says that an object is not an object without an observer
7. Elder says that an object is that which is made of parts
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008