05Radius

1.0 A radius is not a distance

any of the supernatural physical interpretations of Mathematical Physics are due to the misconceived

notion of

the word

distance

Perhaps t

he most ridiculous example is Special Relativity’s

length

/ distance

contraction

of the

muon

Here I look

lesser one.

Radius is the property of ONE physical object

whereas

istance is the separation between TWO

of them

Radius is

either a

length or

measure of

length. It should never be confused for

distance.

The Earth has a

radius: the qualitative or

quantitative length from the center of the Earth to its surface. The orbit of the Moon

does not have a radius. Now we are

talking about the distance or qualitative separation from the center of

the Earth to the center of the Moon (or to a

hypothetical location known as their respective centers of mass).

If we quantify this distance, we are not talking about either

length or distance. We are now alluding to

distance-traveled, the number of tiles we placed as we walked from the center of

the Earth to the center of

the Moon. Mathematical units such as the meter or the mile are NOT measures of length or distance.

They

are measures of distance-traveled. There is no such thing as a static concept in the whole of Mathematics! A

mathematician would have no use for it.

If we say 'the radius of a circle,' we are alluding to a qualitative parameter, an imaginary length extending

from the center to

the edge of the circle. If we instead say that 'the radius of the circle is 15 meters,' we are

now alluding to a quantitative

parameter. We are talking about a number line. We walk along the number line

to the number 15 and place a unit such as

meter after the number. Neither of these concepts should be

confused with a dimension. In any of its forms, a radius is not

the same as the

length

of 'length, width, and

height' fame. Radius has nothing to do with the object being 2-D or 3-D.

2.0 The gravity of the situation

The idiots of Mathematics have for centuries confused

radius with distance. For instance, the

mathematicians routinely

calculate gravity between two spherical celestial objects using distance, but call

radius

and use the little

symbol

. The

reason for this has to

with the fact that the mathematicians define

circle as an orbiting

object. The

circle

of Mathematics

is not a geometric figure. It is a movie of something

flying around a path

that looks like a circumference (for no reason

justifiable in Physics ).

In Physics, a

movie does not qualify as a geometric figure.

Newton’s gravitation equation is oftentimes written F= GM / r

. This equation represents the gravity that

object such as

the Earth would experience as a result of the influence of the Sun.

Here, t

he big M represents

the

mass of the Sun and the r

is supposed to represent the radius of an imaginary circle that

has

the center

of mass of the Sun as its center and the center

of mass of the Earth as its endpoint.

The problem with this equation is that it could be misleading if people are blind sided to the fact that we

are

talking about

the abstract concept '

center of mass

and not

about

objects. This equation makes no

provision for shape.

For example, the Earth has a flattened

out shape in reality. It is flattened at the poles and elongated at the

equator.

The Earth

is not an ideal sphere. It looks more like an

oblate spheroid

. Even in the best case

scenario, i

f we

were to

take the

radius

the Moon's

orbit, assume that it is perfectly circular, and that this

orbit has

its center

located

in the

center of mass

static

Earth, we can’t use

the equation (F = G

)

calculate the gravity the Earth exerts on the Moon

The shape of the Earth is

now

essential

For

instance, in

Fig. 1

, I compare an oblate spheroid and a

prolate spheroid

. These two configurations do not

generate the

same gravitational strength. The prolate spheroid would exert a greater attraction on the Moon.

This is due

distance only indirectly. The physical reason has to do with the number of

EM ropes

converging on the

object (in this case

the Moon).

More ropes superimpose in the

oblate scenario and the

angles at which the

ropes come from the Earth's poles

to the Moon favors the prolate configuration.

Is the radius of a
circle a distance
or a length?

Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

It is well-established in relativity
that the radius of the Earth is
shorter than the radius of the
Moon's orbit.

Module main page

A m

athematic

ian doesn't understand the difference between length and distance

Pages in this module:

eng

and

distance

are not synonyms for the purposes of Science

Physics

, we don't measure distance

In Mathematics, there is no such concept as

distance

n Science, it

is i

rrational to attempt

to measure distance

This pag

Is the radius of a circle a distance

or a length

Fig. 1

An oblate spheroid generates less
gravitational attraction than the
same amount of matter recon-
figured into a prolate spheroid.
This difference has nothing to
do with the radius of the spheroid
or the distance traveled from the
center of the spheroid to the Moon.
It has to do with distance, but only
indirectly. The invisible mechanism
producing gravity consists of
countless ropes that interconnect
every atom in each object. The
prolate spheroid configuration has
a wider angle converging upon the
Moon