1.0   Mathematical Physics does not deal with distance, but with distance-traveled

    [Do not be put off if you are weak in Math. You don't need to
    understand Math to grasp the essence of the following arguments]

    Ever since Newton proposed his Second Law of Motion (F=ma) and the Law of Gravitation (F= G M m / d²) the mathematicians
    have concluded that acceleration in Newton’s 2nd Law (the little 'a') is equivalent to a complex factor in his gravitational
    equation that includes the constant G:

       Force   =      mass * acceleration   =   G Mass1 * mass2 /distance²

       F   =              m a                       =                 G M m / d²         

    ==>        m a   =   G M m / d²          ==>         a = G M / d²  
                                    
                                                                            (just cancel the little 'm' on each side)

    Dimensional analysis is consistent with this assessment:

       (G)                     (Mass)

    a    =        G   Mass      ==>      meter³     kg                   kg           ==>      meter/sec²
    distance²                  kg²       sec²                meter²     
                                                                                                          (distance²)

    [Meters per second squared are the units for acceleration. It means that velocity increases
     one meter per second for every second that goes by on your watch.]

    This simplification makes sense in Mathematics, but it is irrational for the purposes of Physics. A mathematician is an
    individual who understands very little about physical reality and cares even less. Unconcerned about qualitative aspects
    (which they delegate to philosophers), our misguided friends end up comparing apples and oranges. The mathematicians
    are confusing (dynamic) force with (static) tension. The 'distance' in Newton’s 2nd Law is the distance traveled’ by ONE
    object. The distance in the gravitational equation is the (static) separation between TWO objects. The former is a movie.
    The latter is a photograph. The distance in the 2nd Law increases when the object accelerates. The distance in the
    gravitational law decreases when the object accelerates. Each value obtained from the 2nd Law is a cross-section of time
    (i.e., distance-traveled). Each value obtained from the gravitational equation is a cross-section of distance. In Fig. 1,
    I synthesize some of the irreconcilable, qualitative differences between the distances of these two equations.

Fig. 1   Distance versus distance traveled

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 09/15/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
__________
__________________________

    Therefore, the ridiculous notion proposed by the mathematicians   –  that a = G M/d²  –  should be placed where most of their
    ideas belong: in the loony bin. Newton's gravitational equation (the one that has G in it) does not deal with acceleration at all.
    It deals, instead, with the distance of Physics: a static separation between two objects. The gravitational equation is to a
    photograph what the force law is to a movie. The gravitational equation tells us the weight of an object at a fixed distance
    from another. The idiots of Mathematics have not realized this in 400 years. They have taken a piece of this static equation,
    mixed it with a piece of Newton's dynamic force equation, and synthesized that acceleration includes the constant G. If you
    want to visualize acceleration under Newton's Universal Law, you have no alternative but to see a movie where the distance
    between the two objects decreases. You have to plot two or more values from this equation. The force law, instead, already
    embodies motion in the word acceleration.

    Corollary: Weight (w) as a function of distance is acceleration [Gravitational Law  (F=G m1 m2/d²).
    Velocity (v) as function of time is acceleration [Force Law (F=ma)]. Gravitational and inertial
    acceleration for a hypothetical unit of matter (i.e., mass in Mathematics) are equivalent.


    2.0   The bozos of Mathematics decided that acceleration includes G by convention

    So where did the mathematicians get the erroneous idea that the gravitational constant G is part of acceleration? Did they
    determine this after doing some fancy calculations and high level Math?

    No. They put these units in by hand simply because they looked nice:

    “ The dimensions assigned to the gravitational constant (length cubed, divided by mass and
       by time squared) are those needed to make gravitational equations ‘come out right’.” [1]

    How did the scholars allow such a horrible thing to happen?

    Well, the mathematicians had a pow-wow and raised their arms and voted. The gravitational constant G is specified in terms
    of [m³ / (kg sec²)]. In order to synthesize acceleration from this complex unit, the mathematician broke it into digestible chunks
    [(m² / kg) * (m/ sec²)]. Ergo, they decided by 'convention' that the (m/sec²) half represents acceleration.

    “ The gravitational force exerted on an object is proportional to the mass of the object, so it is   
       reasonable to think of the strength of gravity as measured in terms of force per unit mass,
       that is, newtons per kilogram (N/kg). However, the unit N/kg resolves to m/s²; (metres per
       second per second), which is the SI unit of acceleration, and in practice gravitational
       strength is usually quoted as an acceleration.” [2]

    If as I just argued, acceleration is not part of the gravitational equation -- especially if acceleration excludes the gravitational
    constant G -- we must revise this illegal 400-year-old procedure. We have to return to the original [m³ /(kg sec²)] and start all
    over.


    3.0   Newton's gravitational equation has to do with tension and not with force

    As a result of these misconceptions, the mathematicians have erroneously concluded that weight is a type of force:

    “ weight is a force that results from the action of gravity on matter… Since weight is a force,
       the SI unit of weight is simply the unit of force, namely the newton (N) – which can also be
       expressed in SI base units as kg•m/s² (kilograms times meters per second squared)” [3]

    Unfortunately for them, this proposal contradicts the definition of the word force:

    Force: any influence which tends to change the motion of an object” [4]

    “ a ‘push’ or ‘pull’ experienced by a mass m when it is accelerated” [5]

    The morons of Mathematics don't care about definitions. They just plow over them like bumbling fools.

    For instance, it is debatable whether you are moving or accelerating when you stand absolutely still on a bathroom scale.
    You haven’t gone anywhere. So what is this nonsense about acceleration?

    When you accelerate, for example when you dive from a springboard, your weight changes with each location you occupy
    vis à vis the center of the planet. Weight has meaning only for a specific location. It has no meaning in the context of motion:

    potential energy is the energy of position, that is, the energy an object is considered
      to have due to its position in space... The factors that affect an object's gravitational
      potential energy are its height relative to some reference point ...Thus, a book lying
      on a table has less gravitational potential energy than the same book on top of a
      taller cupboard...The strength of a gravitational field varies with location. [6]

    We need to see two or more frames of a movie to visualize acceleration. We need a single frame of the movie to visualize
    weight! Weight is not a dynamic force as the mathematicians would have you believe. If acceleration is a movie, weight is
    a photograph. We should be able to explain weight without invoking motion (i.e., acceleration). Weight is a static concept:
    a tension. You should be able to take a snapshot of the agent the mediates weight! Weight is not a force because force is
    a movie! Newton’s gravitational equation has to do with weight. Newton’s force equation (2nd Law) has to do with
    acceleration. The gravitational equation (G M m/d²) is not an expression of force, but rather of tension.

    The problem is that the idiots of Mathematics have defined tension as a type of force:

    " Tension is a reaction force... The direction of the force of tension is parallel to the
      string... the gravitational force on the object points downward, and there is an
      equal tension force in the rope point upward, making the net force on the object
      equal to zero." [7]

    " When an object is being pulled by a rope a force is exerted on it. The magnitude
      of the force is called the tension." [8]

    [This may be true in Mathematics, not in Physics! In Physics, tension is a qualitative
     phenomenon; not a numerical one. Tension means that neither of the participants is
     winning the tug of war. We don't need or use numbers or magnitudes in Physics!]

    Therefore, I must again remind the mathematical morons that they defined the word force as that which changes the
    motion of an object. By definition, during tension there is no motion of the object. Therefore, by definition tension cannot
    be described as a force. Weight is NOT a force because a given weight is valid ONLY for a specific location in space. We
    need to see something moving if we wish to measure weight. We don't need to see anything moving to conceptualize
    weight. For instance, if a test object (m) is located closer to the center of the primary mass (M), both weight and velocity
    of the object increase. However, weight increased because of a change in ‘physical’ distance (the qualitative gap between
    the two objects decreased). An increase in velocity, on the other hand, means that the object is now farther from origin. If
    the distance in the case of weight is in front of the object, the distance-traveled in the velocity scenario is behind it! This
    argument reaffirms that weight requires neither motion nor time. Indeed, we could have two identical objects
    simultaneously at different altitudes above the Earth with different weights (Fig. 2)! We do not need to accelerate or move
    either of them in any way... because if we did, their weights would change!

    4.0   Conclusions

    Acceleration is NOT equal to (GM/d²) as held by the numskulls of Mathematics since the days of Newton. Indeed, distance in
    the inertial law is directly proportional to acceleration and refers to the increasing distance traveled by the object whereas the
    decreasing distance in the gravitational equation generates more force and is thus predictably found in the denominator. The
    distance in Newton's Universal Law is the distance of Physics. The 'distance' in Newton's 2nd Law is the surrealistic,
    unscientific 'distance-traveled' of Mathematics. The mathematicians of the world from Newton to Hawking were never able to
    figure this out.

    Of course, with such fancy mathematical gimmicks, it is not surprising that the idiots at NASA get confused and cannot later
    explain why the Pioneer probes (X and XI) decelerate towards the Sun! Perhaps it's dark matter? Then again, it could be dark
    energy, or dark angels... Who knows?
Distance-traveled in
Newton's 2nd Law
(F = m a)
(        )


    Fig. 2   Weight is conceptually static
No, you have merely increased your force. What you
have to do is cut back on your acceleration.
I suggest you move to the equator to increase your
distance from the center of the Earth.
Ooooh, Newt! Look at all that
weight I gained over the weekend.
I gotta cut back on the pizza!

Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
A mathematician
doesn't know the
difference between
weight and force!
Distance in the
gravitational equation
(F = G m1 m2 / d²)
1. Distance is static

2. Distance is 'between' 2 objects

3. Each frame in the movie depicts a
static distance
                                     
4. Distance decreases (d1, d2, d3) when
acceleration increases

5. Distance is towards the other object.


6. Distance is a measure of weight (w)

7. Force increases when distance
decreases.
                                
1. 'Distance' is dynamic

2. Distance is 'traveled' by 1 object

3. Each frame in the movie is a cross-
section of the
itinerary of one object
                                   
4. Distance increases (d1, d2, d3)
when acceleration increases

5. Distance-traveled is away from an
unspecified object.

6. Distance is a measure of velocity (v)

7. Force increases when distance  
increases.
The morons of Mathematics call weight a 'force'. However,
a force is a dynamic parameter. Force is defined as
a push
or pull. The object will necessarily change locations.
Pursuant to Newton's 2nd Law of motion, force involves
acceleration (F=ma).  

In contrast, weight is conceptually static. Weight is
location-specific and must not involve motion. An asteroid
has weight irrespective of measurement or observers. It
has a different weight at different distances from Earth
irrespective of whether an idiot of Mathematics takes a
measurement or not. If a box is located closer to the center
of Earth, it weighs more than if it is located farther from
Earth. This is strictly a conceptual issue and not one of
measurement.
We should be able to depict weight in a still image. We should not need to watch a movie.
Newton's 2nd Law (F=ma) cannot be used to calculate weight. It is his Universal Law (static
tension as opposed to force) which depicts weight. The question is whether it is possible to
illustrate such a mechanism in the real world (i.e., instantaneous action at a distance). I
answer this question on page
3 of this module.
/
/