Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.0   All mathematical 'objects' are concepts

    Mathematics is a language that relativists urge laymen to learn in order to understand their explanations of
    physical phenomena. Mathematicians use words such as number, equation, information, measurement, and
    path as nouns (Fig. 1). This is not because these words represent objects, but because they may serve as
    the subject of a sentence (e.g., ‘This number is greater than that one.’ or ‘The path of an electron is called an
    orbital.’). Objects belong exclusively to Physics; there are no objects in Mathematics. Let’s now look at
    these routine ‘mathematical objects’ to show how relativists use them to prop up their theories.


    2.0   Number

    The words number and magnitude are two nouns that mathematicians associate with Physics. Most
    variables and constants used by mathematicians in their relativistic equations ultimately trace their lineage
    to quantities. The mathematicians define magnitude as a ‘quantifiable property.’ The word property, for its
    part, has the following synonyms: aspect, quality, characteristic, trait, attribute, feature, shape, outward
    appearance, form, capability, and power, none of which can be remotely confused with objects. Similarly,
    the words quantity (also defined as a property) and number represent the verbs to count or to enumerate.
    The mathematicians casually convert these words into objects and then begin to move them around. They
    talk about the 'position' of numbers and about how they become 'members' of sets.

    What the mathematician is doing in reality is shaking her hand several times to count the objects in front of
    her. From a conceptual point of view, a numeral is a symbol that depicts the shaking of a mathematician’s
    hand.  'A' number is the verb to count.

    Hence, the definition of object excludes magnitude, number and quantity from the Physics list of nouns. For
    the purposes of Physics, numbers are adverbs – the iterations of our index finger or the nods of a head
    when counting. Hence, numbers play no role whatsoever in Physics. The apples belong to Physics. The
    counting belongs to Math.

    number: A word used to designate the result of counting or enumerating.


    3.0   Equation

    An equation is a symbolic representation of an itinerary. Synonyms include the words function, formula,
    variable, and expression. For example, the equation for a circumference (circ. = 2 π r) is all motion. We had
    to swing the point around a fixed center to construct this curved perimeter. The equation for the area of a
    triangle is no different. A triangle has width and height and we calculate its area by translating a shrinking
    base along its height (base times height divided by 2). To measure the base, the mathematician had to roll
    out the measuring tape parallel to the base and establish a relation. To obtain the height, the mathematician
    rolled a similar pre-established standard parallel to the longest perpendicular emanating from the base. The
    measuring tape itself was itself defined as a standard by dividing it into arbitrary equal units, i.e., counting.
    The fact that we can replace the variables B and H with different numbers on the number line also points to
    a dynamic process. An area of a triangle is conceptually the scanning of half the base along the distance
    labeled height. Whether representing a linear, planar or solid figure, not a single equation of Mathematics
    ever represents a static object. Mathematics deals exclusively with relations between objects, one of which
    serves as a standard.


    4.0   Information

    Relativists allege that it is possible to deviate shadows and light spots faster than light, but that it is not
    possible for objects to travel at this speed. The party line is that ‘information’ cannot travel faster than light:

    “These are all examples of things which can go faster than light, but which are not
     physical objects.  It is not possible to send information faster than light on a shadow
     or light spot so FTL communication is not possible in this way.  This is not what we
     mean by faster than light travel although it shows how difficult it is to define what we
     really do mean by faster than light travel.” [1]

    It is actually very simple to define what faster than light means. It just means that an object travels faster
    than 300,000 km/sec. The question is whether information qualifies as a physical object. Perhaps in the
    religion of relativity mathematicians can carry information across the street, but in Physics, information is
    what an observer has in her mind. What she has in front of her is just data and facts. Perhaps ingenious
    lawyers can justify carrying information across state lines in an unscrupulous legal system, but never
    physicists, not if information has as synonyms knowledge and data.

    The definition of property was initially predicated on tangible objects, and steal is a verb that developed in
    relation to physical property.  There are two requirements for something to be declared property: exclusive
    use and exclusive rights. The first involves an object, the second a process. If I steal your shoe, you are
    excluded from using that particular shoe despite that you are its rightful owner. I now have exclusive use
    and you continue to enjoy exclusive rights – a published deed or receipt certifies so. But rights are
    concepts of interest solely to the legal system. As far as Physics is concerned, I have added and you have
    subtracted, and here Physics is to shoe what Math is to rights. Like lawyers, mathematicians will attempt to
    persuade the jury that subtraction could result in zero, for example, 1 – 1 = 0. This may be okay in the
    abstract world of Math, but never in Physics. In Physics, the shoe doesn’t vanish; it merely changes
    location. The atoms that once covered your feet now protect mine.

    Intangibles, on the other hand, are incapable of moving. Like all concepts, information is actually a true
    immovable (in the legal sense). Knowledge and data do not occupy space, are nowhere to begin with, and
    therefore do not exhibit the ability to displace objects like the ink and the paper do. Information cannot be
    constrained because it is a process occurring within the brain.

    Further, we do not create new matter when we process information nor are raw material inputs required to
    construct information inside the brain. The number of atoms in our body remains the same after acquiring
    or losing data or knowledge. The ten individuals who read ‘Joe is the killer’ process this information in their
    brains and are able to repeat the sentence verbatim. They share the information and cannot exclude each
    other from ‘using’ it. Unless information is secret, i.e., exclusively 'used' by a single person in the world, it is
    confidential, i.e., shared by more than one person simultaneously. Therefore, information is rarely, if ever,
    secret. Shoes, on the other hand, are rarely, if ever, confidential. The individuals have not subtracted
    information from the television screen nor added cells to their brains, nor does the death of one individual
    make his neurons vanish. The cells merely cease to interact with others. Now only nine individuals process
    ‘Joe is the killer’ in their brains.


    5.0   Measurement

    Measurement is a relation, and comparisons imply more than one frame, image, or location of an object.  The
    word derives from the Latin dimetiri, which translated is the verb 'to measure'. Measurement is the intangible
    residue left over by the verb 'to measure' morphed inadvertently into noun. It is clearly without meaning to
    imagine the shape of measurement (or of the results of 'a' measurement), or to visualize measurement in a
    single frame or image. As a quantifiable word, measurement is just another adverb and properly belongs to
    the lingo of Mathematics. Hence, measurement standards such as  meter, kilogram, and second are
    relations, not objects. And the categories they represent – quantitative distance traveled, mass, and time –
    are abstract concepts. None of them have any place in Physics as proper subjects of study.


    6.0   Path   
         
    Perhaps the most misused word of all in contemporary Physics is the word path. There are words that seem
    to be caught in limbo between verbs and nouns that mislead relativists even to this day. The word path, for
    example, appears at first glance to meet our definition of noun because we can visualize the shape of a path
    in a single frame. On the other hand it doesn't appear that we can touch the path a particle leaves in an
    accelerator or that you traced on your way home. A path does not seem to be made of matter and requires
    more than one frame to be visualized. But again, we cannot imagine the path of a particle without the
    particle.

    The trouble with path is that, like love, it is a word used both as a noun and as a verb, and relativists happen
    to bounce them back and forth between Math and Physics indiscriminately. If we take path to mean road,
    such an object cannot be conceived without shape. An asphalt highway or a winding street can be
    illustrated in a single frame and displace objects – namely, your feet. If instead we take path to mean
    trajectory, itinerary, course, geodesic, or orbit, we are no longer referring to a physical object but to the
    imaginary trace a moving noun imprinted in your memory. We need more than one image to construct such
    a path. We are not looking at a still picture, but at a video. We cannot just use a single word – path – to
    convey the concept trajectory or orbit to an extraterrestrial. We need to bore him with a lengthy discourse. A
    picture of a satellite orbiting the Earth reveals a satellite, not an orbit. A picture of a wedding band, on the
    other hand, shows a ring. The Mobius Strip which awes so many internet physicists is a structure, a noun,
    whereas the figure-eight itinerary around the strip is a film of a thing in motion: a verb. Perhaps we can
    forgive naïve kids if  they  are deceived  when Mighty Mouse encircles and tightens the noose around some  
    mean cats  with  his flying trajectory,  but what excuse do relativists have to confuse geodesics and orbitals  
    with roads (Fig. 2).   

    Relativists define a geodesic as the shortest line between two points on a curved surface.   Both curve and
    line appear to be nouns, but relativists never use the word geodesic except in the context of motion that the
    curve or line is supposed to represent. Therefore, 'a' geodesic is not a noun and it is ludicrous for relativists
    to treat them as highways when describing or explaining the motions of planets. Convention should dictate
    that itineraries be drawn in dotted lines to avoid confusing the grown-ups.  


    The bottom line is that relativists extrapolate the concepts of Mathematics to Physics and convert them into
    objects. The reality is that Mathematics doesn’t deal with genuine nouns (objects, shapes) at all. The religion
    known as Math Phyz solely deals with abstract concepts. This wouldn't be much of a problem if it weren't
    for the fact that the mathematicians claim that their numbers, variables, and equations give them license to
    interpret the real world for us. The truth of the matter is that the ridiculous physical interpretations that Math
    Phyz offers for even the most common phenomena have far exceeded the irrationality of traditional
    religions.
The nouns of Math

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/12/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008

Fig. 1  

Mathematical objects,
entities, and structures

Fig.  2   Relativistic paths
You seem to have trouble grasping
simple, abstract concepts, Bill.
Now I'm going to try to learn ya
with real, concrete objects.