🚀 go-pugleaf

http://site.voila.fr/monsyte/de/SCIENCES/scphys/DEBATS/Answer_to_Rock_Brentwood_1.htm

AN ANSWER TO ROCK BRENTWOOD
Absolute space, absolute place, absolute motion, absolute speed.

"Thus, most peoples' notion of genidentity is such that New York in
2001 is the "same place" as New York in 2008."

Complete text of Rock Brentwood and Newton's text on SCI PHYSICS

22/12/07 17:58

Yanick Toutain


The materialist analysis (Newton's analysis) of the place where is New
York is very simple.

The town is on an absolute place. Then, one second after, the town is
5000 km far away.

New York has an absolute motion from an absolute place to another
absolute place.

There is a vector from NY1 to NY2.

The length of the vector is around 1/60 of the length of vector-speed
of light.

(1/60 is approximate but not far)

In one second, each part of the Earth have a motion. That motion has a
speed.

The speed is 5000 +/- 29.7 +- 0.565 km/s

(absolute speed of the Sun +/- revolution speed of the earth +/-
rotation speed of the Earth )

(with a light corrective in cosinus for inclination)

I have written a text about the distance between us (today) and the
battle of Waterloo (YOU can find it on usenet)

My position is the position of Newton.

And you must argument against Newton himself with true arguments if
you want to participate to the new scientific revolution.

The only difference between Newton and me is the fact that I am more
Newtonist than Newton:

On the 3rd of July (at the aphelia point), the photons leaves the Sun
and will describe a vector of 152 millions of kilometres.

BUT

During the motion, the Earth is also moving (in the absolute space).

That motion is probably a motion equal to 152 millions of kilometres
divided by 60.(Aïn Al Rami hypothesis)

(152 105 142/59.819 = 2542756,35 km)

The delay of the motion of the photon is 507.37 seconds.

During that delay, the delay of the travel of the photons in the
absolute space (of Democritos), it is impossible for the Earth to stay
immobile.

The Earth is also moving during 507 seconds, from a point E1 to a
point E2.

After that delay, the observer on the Earth can see the Sun at the
absolute place S1!

He can't see the sun at the absolute place S2!

To resume : when the Sun is on the absolute place S1, at the same
time, the Earth is on the absolute place E1.

The signal (photons) leaves the position S1 and goes to the position
E2.

The signal arrive on the Earth after a delay; during that delay the
Earth has had a motion from E1 to E2.

This is the basis of the new materialist revolution.

And I have describe some experiences to find the absolute speed of the
Earth, the absolute speed of the Sun etc...

The last one is very simple : To take two photographs at the same
time :

A photograph (of the moon) from the Earth

And a photograph (of the Earth) from the Moon.

You will know the difference between the length of the photons Earth-
Moon and the photons Moon-Earth.

The key of Newton's dream is here.



Best materialist salutations

Yanick Toutain

===================

In French : Newton's analysis of absolute motion

L'analyse du mouvement absolu par Newton

The new sparkle

=====================================================



The Galilean principle of relativity, you see, also entails an even
greater relativity for spatial positions -- the relativity of
Genidentity. Genidentity is the term logicians use to refer to the
concept of a point at one time being the "same place" as a point at
another time. Thus, most peoples' notion of genidentity is such that
New York in 2001 is the "same place" as New York in 2008.

Le principe Galilean de relativité, vous voyez, entraîne aussi une
relativité même plus grande pour des positions spatiales - la
relativité de Genidentity. Genidentity est l'utilisation de logiciens
de terme pour se référer au concept d'un point à un temps pour d'être
"la même place" qu'un point à un autre temps. Ainsi, la notion de la
plupart peuples de genidentity est tel que New York en 2001 est "la
même place" que New York en 2008.

But if motion is relative, then the "sameness" vs. "differentness" of
place is too! It would be just as valid, for instance, to say that New
York in 2001 is the "same place" as some place in the middle of outer
space today where the Earth "used to be" before it "moved away" from
that place.

Mais si le mouvement est relatif, donc "l'identité" contre "le fait
d'être différent" de place est aussi! Il serait de même que valable,
par exemple, dire que New York en 2001 est "la même place" que quelque
place au milieu du cosmos aujourd'hui où la Terre "a eu l'habitude
d'être" avant qu'il "ne se"soit éloigné"de cette place.

Thus, there is no longer any cohesive concept of a point, in the sense
of a position that endures in time. The very genidentity of points
(the prerequisite to defining spatial geometry) is lost.

Ainsi, il n'y a plus de concept cohésif d'un point, dans le sens d'une
position qui supporte à temps. Genidentity même de points (la chose
préalable à la définition de la géométrie spatiale) est perdu.



On 20 déc, 12:52, Rock Brentwood <markw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:09 pm, Yanick Toutain <yanicktout...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The earthmoving, for Isaac Newton was indeed a displacement compared
> > to the vacuum itself. An absolute displacement.
>
> Newton had no choice but to proceed the way he did, because the ideas
> required to fully incorporate Galilean relativity (affine bundles)
> would not come into being until Cartan.
>
> The problem he faced is as follows. Galileo's principle of relativity
> means that "0" no longer has any objective meaning for velocity. This,
> then, would mean that velocities could not be regarded as vectors,
> since a vector space has a 0. Rather, it has to be represented as a
> point in an *affine* space. For, indeed, that's the very feature that
> distinguishes affine spaces from vector spaces -- there is no
> distinguished "0" in the former.
>
> But, then, that's the problem. The differences and differentials of
> affine points ARE vectors. This makes it impossible to model the
> spatial geometry of positions as an affine geometry!
>
> The Galilean principle of relativity, you see, also entails an even
> greater relativity for spatial positions -- the relativity of
> Genidentity. Genidentity is the term logicians use to refer to the
> concept of a point at one time being the "same place" as a point at
> another time. Thus, most peoples' notion of genidentity is such that
> New York in 2001 is the "same place" as New York in 2008.
>
> But if motion is relative, then the "sameness" vs. "differentness" of
> place is too! It would be just as valid, for instance, to say that New
> York in 2001 is the "same place" as some place in the middle of outer
> space today where the Earth "used to be" before it "moved away" from
> that place.
>
> Thus, there is no longer any cohesive concept of a point, in the sense
> of a position that endures in time. The very genidentity of points
> (the prerequisite to defining spatial geometry) is lost.
>
> This means, among other things, that "point" can no longer be taken as
> a primitive in geometry, if you believe Galileo's principle. Rather,
> one must go one level deeper and take a point-at-an-instant (or what
> we now call an "event") as primitive.
>
> Thus, as an aside, we also see that it was GALILEO and Galileo's
> principle of relativity that made the concept of spacetime a
> necessity, and a necessary replacement for the lost cohesiveness of
> the concept of point; not Minkowski or Einstein or Lorentz; and not
> special relativity!
>
> If velocities are, themselves, affine points then that would that make
> positions? That was the dilemma Newton faced. While he could answer
> the question: "what is the differential of an affine point?" (for,
> that's what his bucket experiment was meant to demonstrate: the
> differential of the (affine) velocities is a (vector) acceleration),
> he could not answer the reverse question: "what is the ANTI-
> differential of an affine point?"
>
> And that's because the concepts required to formulate the answer to
> that question were not in the vocabulary of anyone prior to the early
> 20th century and the time of Cartan. The answer, of course, is that
> velocities lie in what's known as the "tangent space" of whatever the
> underlying geometry is. The geometry whose tangent spaces are affine
> spaces is called an affine bundle.
>
> So, Newton (possibly even unbeknownst to himself) did not formulate
> the principle of absolute space so much as to assert a new foundation
> for physics as he did simply as a convenient expedient to get out of
> the jam that he (correctly) saw would arise from taking serious
> Galileo's principle of relativity. He asserted the absoluteness of
> space, because he had nothing better at the time: he didn't know about
> affine bundles (nor spacetime). Had he had these concepts in his
> vocabulary at the time, he would have used them instead.
>
> Lack of opportunity, in this case, does not equate to lack of will.