1.       One of three hypothetical segmented lines that pictorially depict the three mutually-perpendicular
    directions an object can move in.

    The three vectors of Physics are called depth, breadth, and elevation, with the convention that
    height is typically oriented parallel with the direction of gravity of the celestial body used as
    reference and width, with the observer's horizon. Dimensions should under no circumstances be
    confused with coordinates (longitude, latitude, and altitude) or with vectors (depth, breadth, and

    In Science, dimensions are static concepts. They have two properties: direction and orthogonality.
    There is no such thing as a dimension without the other two. Whenever we talk about width, we are
    implicitly alluding to length and height.

    In the religion of Mathematical Physics, dimensions are treated as dynamic concepts. The
    dimensions of Mathematics have magnitude, but lack direction. Direction is conceptually static and
    'made' of a single piece (i.e.continuous). The 'dimensions' of Math are segmented, meaning that they
    are composed of countless numbers. You cannot reconcile segmented with direction!  The idiots of
    Mathematics are referring to number lines and calling them 'dimensions.' Number lines fit the
    description of what the mathematicians are talking about: no direction and segmented. Now you
    know how the idiots of relativity converted time into a 'dimension.'   
    In their zeal to define words ever more abstractly, the mathematicians have put so much effort in defining
    the word vector that they have made it circular and meaningless. Contemporary definitions merely say that
    a vector is an element of a vector space. [1] The mathematicians say that these vectors can be added,
    subtracted, and multiplied, but you have to guess what they are talking about. There is no hint as to what a
    vector is or what it represents. A vector space, for its part, is defined as the object of study of linear algebra.
    And, of course, linear algebra is the study of vectors and vector spaces.
    Fortunately, and before the record vanishes completely, we still have some documents bequeathed from
    days of old that give us a vague idea of what a vector used to be. A vector was until recently defined as ‘a
    directed line segment’. [2] The most popular examples were force and velocity, parameters that the
    mathematical vector is allowed to depict pictorially because all three appear to have two properties in
    common: magnitude and direction. [3] Both force and velocity are dynamic concepts, and this is consistent
    with the etymology of the word vector. The word vector comes from the Latin vehere, roughly translated as
    ‘carrier’ or ‘to carry’. Therefore, from the start the word vector was intended to be used in the context of
    If a vector is further alleged to have direction, again we are talking about displacement or directed motion.
    This contrasts significantly against the conceptually static words dimension, which is reserved for contexts
    dealing with structure, and coordinate, which has to do strictly with orientation and location. Therefore, a
    vector is not a directed line (static object) but displacement (motion), a notion that is incongruously
    depicted with a line capped by an arrowhead. I say incongruously because motion implies that each
    location is on a unique frame of the film. The static vector of mathematics – the line segment – is a collage of
    The issue doesn’t end there. If a vector were only a pictorial representation of rectilinear motion, there
    would be no difference between a vector and displacement. A vector additionally embodies yet another
    feature: it is orthogonal with respect to the other two vectors. A single vector is one of three. An object can
    move up (or down), sideways (left or right), or forward (or backward). Of course, there are countless angles
    in between that an object can move in. We don’t have to move north/south or east/west; we can move
    northeast or southwest or any direction in between. However, we must distinguish between the object
    doing the motion and the observer visualizing the scene from afar. From the object’s vantage point if the
    object is going forward, it is by definition moving along the vector of depth. If the object is facing ‘forward’ –
    because this is where we choose to put our eyes – but moving sideways – perpendicular to this particular
    line of sight – then we must talk about breadth. And so on. Hence, a vector embodies not only rectilinear
    motion, but orthogonal direction with respect to the other two.
    What a vector of Physics does not have is this mathematical property called magnitude. A magnitude is

    and implies that there are perpendicular angles. The object However, any of these perspectives instantly
    becomes one of the three from the observer’s standpoint and is subsequently used as a reference for the
    other two. The word vector is simply a useful or popular convention to designate the main directions an
    object can move in.

    A vector is not really a straight line, but a segmented concept. it is not a curve but a movie, a series of
    frames on a film. Therefore, when we see a line on a graph that a relativist tells us represents the motion of a
    particle, we are not looking at a continuous curve of distance versus time, but a movie constructed with
    individual frames. Unlike dimensions and coordinates which are photographs, vectors are movies. hence, a
    'position vector' is perhaps the most ridiculous and incongruous notion in relativity. To see why let's
    translate this term for laymen. Position vector is like saying position motion or moving standstill. Again, the
    fact that relativists use the word vector to qualify dimensions and coordinates shows how they've lost track
    of what they have been talking about all these years.
    Vector a is translation from point P to point Q.  Then he contradicts himself by saying that a vector is
    defined by two points.  Indelible proof that relativists confuse displacement (motion of ONE object) with
    distance (a static separation between TWO objects). The distance vector conceptually belongs to a static
    universe whereas the displacement vector belongs to a dynamic universe. The distance vector is not really
    a vector because vectors represent motion, not static parameters such as distance, location or position.
    Unlike with the definition of displacement, the definition of distance makes no provision for direction, and if
    we judge by the arrowheads, we could just as well say that distance has two of them facing diametrically. In
    Physics, direction means only ‘direction of motion.’ Direction is a dynamic parameter. When we point with
    our finger, we are conceptually talking about orientation, not direction. The finger is tilted to orient the
    person to the designated place. If a vector requires both magnitude and direction, a distance is not a vector
    because it lacks direction.

    Rectilinear displacement is a special type of displacement (motion).  Displacement in general is simply
    motion. If we wish to quantify distance traveled, we must establish a standard and perform a measurement,
    a comparison between the ruler and the path. Then we can state the 'length' of the path in terms of the units
    of rulers that fit in the trajectory. But both displacement and its special brand rectilinear displacement
    without this quantification are qualitative concepts.  Displacement is a property we associate with a
    dynamic universe.
    Distance (gap) is a static notion: the gap or separation between two objects. Distance is a qualitative notion
    in principle. If we wish to quantify distance, we are implicitly making a standard: a ruler and performing a
    comparison between the number of such units that fit in this distance between two objects -- not to be con
    fused with trajectory of one object -- and the itinerary. A measurement of gap distance or distance traveled
    is conceptually the same. The moment we obtain a value, that value is valid only for the cross-section of
    time, that frame of the film in which we obtained it. But this should not let us lose sight of the fact that the
    original distance traveled (one object from its starting point) and the gap distance (between two objects) are
    qualitative and distinct.

    The null or position vector for its part has neither direction nor magnitude, so it does not meet either
    requirement of a vector. The novice may have to think about the direction argument, but will likely protest
    the magnitude issue. He’ll argue that the magnitude of the null vector is zero. The trouble is that zero is not
    a number or magnitude. (see section xx). Null or position vectors are oxymorons. A null vector reduces to
    ‘single location’ motion. vector curvature. P. 126. direction curvature.

    Vectors are typically drawn as straight arrows representing displacement -- sequential positions of a noun.
    However, if the definition of vector incorporates the concepts magnitude and direction as relativists allege,
    it appears that we are comparing two displacements. As a magnitude, displacement is established by
    comparing two rectilinear motions, one of which we arbitrarily designate as our standard. The standard
    moved 1 meter while the test object moved 5 meters. As a qualitative notion, such as faster or further, we are
    still comparing two displacements. Direction, in turn, also implies a relation: right and North are undefined
    without a reference. This is all very ironic because in  the exact sciences the word displacement is defined
    in terms of a single moving object. How is it that relativists conceptualize rectilinear motion, magnitude and
    direction in a universe consisting of a single object?
    The answer is that they’ve never taken the trouble. The current definition of displacement takes for granted
    a universe filled with matter. In a universe consisting of a single object, and for the purposes of qualitative
    displacement (motion and direction), rectilinear motion is referenced to imaginary, intrinsic vectors of the
    object under study. Displacement is visualized as a succession of positions along one of the vectors as
    referenced to the other two along which a given object could conceivably be moving. The solitary vector
    breadth, for example, has direction only when tacitly referenced to depth and elevation of the object under
    study. This rectilinear displacement can be described with three vectors depending on how we tilt our
    points of reference. Consequently, a vector represents motion and direction in a single arrow because it is
    implicitly referenced to the other two vectors intrinsic to the system, not to another moving object. A vector
    does not represent quantitative displacement because this definition would require motion of another
    object. For the same reasons a vector does not represent qualitative comparisons (e.g., faster/slower).
    Hence, a single vector arrow (i.e., only depth, breadth or altitude) can embody qualitative direction of motion
    (by definition) but not quantitative or qualitative displacement established via a comparison.
    What do we intend to call vectors pointing at intermediate angles? Let’s reply with a question. What do we
    call width when the object is tilted? How about the dimension that runs 45º to it? A lone vector that is drawn
    at 45º is not referenced to the observer’s line of sight or to objects in the vicinity, but tacitly to imaginary
    breadth. We leave it to physicists and mathematicians to agree on labels once they understand these

    Displacement (adv.): From an intrinsic, qualitative perspective, displacement is synonymous with vector as
    referenced against the other two vectors intrinsic to the system. From a quantitative perspective,
    displacement is a measure of consecutive, linear positions a 3D noun occupies as compared to a standard.
    Displacement can also be qualitatively compared (e.g., faster/slower).            


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008