The detection of absolute spaces

In Newtonian mechanics and LET we have the notions of absolute spaces.
What is absolute about them is that they exist completely
independently of observable matter/energy. Then how could it possible
to determine an absolute space by use of observable matter/energy?

Patrick

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
The detection of absolute spaces

In Newtonian mechanics and LET we have the notions of absolute spaces.
What is absolute about them is that they exist completely
independently of observable matter/energy. Then how could it possible
to determine an absolute space by use of observable matter/energy?

Patrick

Not "absolute spaces" but universal frame of reference - sometimes called
"absolute space" (singular).

The determination can only be direct if there are imperfections in the
theory.

Nevertheless, the detection may be said to have been done indirectly in the
sense that those mechanics _require_ the existence of such an absolute frame
for their functionality - even Einstein's GRT requires according to himself*
such a physical reference for acceleration, and IMO (and Builder etc.) SRT
requires it just as well to explain why its mechanics relates firstly to
inertial frames instead of relating only to matter.

* "Newton might no less well have called his absolute space "Ether"; what is
essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is
not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or
rotation to be looked upon as something real." - Einstein 1920

Harald

(Patrick Reany) wrote in message . com...
The detection of absolute spaces

In Newtonian mechanics and LET we have the notions of absolute spaces.

As long as you associate aether with absolute space there is nothing
in Newton's original text that would support the association,Newton
entertained aether in 1670 but drops it in the Principia which is
where the term 'absolute space' pops up and explicitly rejects aether
in Optics.

1670

Title "De gravitatione" [Complements of Andre Michaud]



Definition 10: Gravitation is the force that induces a body to go
down. Let us understand here by "going down" not only the motion
towards the center of the Earth, but also towards any point or
region; or also, accomplished from any point. Similarly, if we
consider as gravity the conatus* of the ether that rotates about
the Sun in a motion to get away from the center of that body, we
must say that the ether that is moving away is falling. Also,
to remain consistant with the analogy, the plane that is directly
opposed to the determination of gravity or the effort will be
called horizontal.

Besides, the quantity of these powers, that is, the motion, the
force, the conatus, the impetus**, the inertia, the pressure and
the gravity is evaluated in two manners: according to the intensity
of these powers and according to their spread.

* Definition 6: The conatus is the force that an obstacle contraries
or the force [that manifests itself] inasmuch as there is resistance.

** Definition 7: The impetus is the force that is induced into
another body.




1687

Principia

"I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is,
that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time


1704

Opticks

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314]
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."







What is absolute about them is that they exist completely
independently of observable matter/energy.

If you are anyway clever you would notice that the spiel of
absolute/relative time,space and motion is Newton's way of distancing
the work of Kepler from his own agenda.Once you call anything
absolute,you can kiss the term goodbye,in other words it is preferable
to consider the distinction between absolute space and relative space
as the difference between geocentric observations and heliocentric
modelling.

Btw,Newton's assumption that heliocentric coordinates are equivalent
to geocentric coordinates are incorrect for the common justification
for that principle relies on the 'fixed stars' or circumpolar motion
and unless you did'nt know,it is not possible to consider the Earth's
axial rotation and orbital motion as a single sidereal motion.


"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.

This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic
times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions
of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have
determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the
mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but
insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part
fall in between them; as we may see from the following table."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm






Then how could it possible
to determine an absolute space by use of observable matter/energy?

Patrick

Don't homogenise cosmological evolutionary process with cosmological
structure and motion,absolute space is a throwaway term designed to
conceal rather than reveal anything and however ingenious Newton
thought he was in conjuring up the term from common astronomical
translations of geocentric observations translated into heliocentric
modelling,this barely concealed treachery in defering credit away from
Kepler was repaid in spades in the early 20th century.

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
(Patrick Reany) wrote in message
. com...
The detection of absolute spaces

In Newtonian mechanics and LET we have the notions of absolute spaces.

As long as you associate aether with absolute space there is nothing
in Newton's original text that would support the association,Newton
entertained aether in 1670 but drops it in the Principia which is
where the term 'absolute space' pops up and explicitly rejects aether
in Optics.

That simply means that he considered that it was better to use a new word,
to avoid confusion with the kind of ether that he discussed in 1670 - an
ether that could "rotate" and even "fall", and that "pervades the
interstices between the parts of bodies" so that it "would interfere with
and slow down the motions". Obviously absolute space is a very different
concept, but still physical - not nothingness. Anyway, thanks for the
citations!

1670

Title "De gravitatione" [Complements of Andre Michaud]



Definition 10: Gravitation is the force that induces a body to go
down. Let us understand here by "going down" not only the motion
towards the center of the Earth, but also towards any point or
region; or also, accomplished from any point. Similarly, if we
consider as gravity the conatus* of the ether that rotates about
the Sun in a motion to get away from the center of that body, we
must say that the ether that is moving away is falling. Also,
to remain consistant with the analogy, the plane that is directly
opposed to the determination of gravity or the effort will be
called horizontal.

Besides, the quantity of these powers, that is, the motion, the
force, the conatus, the impetus**, the inertia, the pressure and
the gravity is evaluated in two manners: according to the intensity
of these powers and according to their spread.

* Definition 6: The conatus is the force that an obstacle contraries
or the force [that manifests itself] inasmuch as there is resistance.

** Definition 7: The impetus is the force that is induced into
another body.




1687

Principia

"I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is,
that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time


1704

Opticks

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314]
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."

SNIP further discussion - including a part that I still don't understand
about the motion of the earth, does anyone else understand what Oriel claims
every time about sidereal motion?

Harald

(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...
(Patrick Reany) wrote in message . com...
The detection of absolute spaces

In Newtonian mechanics and LET we have the notions of absolute spaces.

As long as you associate aether with absolute space

I do not in Newton's mechanics.

Patrick

"Patrick Reany" ha scritto nel messaggio
om...
The detection of absolute spaces

In Newtonian mechanics and LET we have the notions of absolute spaces.
What is absolute about them is that they exist completely
independently of observable matter/energy. Then how could it possible
to determine an absolute space by use of observable matter/energy?

Patrick

Of course the absolute space exist independently from matter and energy,
not its local physical characteristics.

We can distinguish the concept of abstract space: a vivid mental abstraction
of a 3D space unaffected by anything and container of everything.

This abstract Space can be thought completely empty, it has though a spatial
reality, while Time also a vivid mental abstraction but has not a
independent
existence.

The concrete local physical space (ether) where light travels at a fixed
speed and against which is felt the inertia of bodies, this ether is
contained in the 3D abstract space and is not necessarily
coincident with it.

We cannot be sure that different light and masses are exactly fallowing the
same prefixed paths in the ether (to a infinite precision) nor we know the
exact nature of the ether.

I think the independence of the speed of the light from the source and the
inertia of the bodies are sufficient to imply the existence of the ether.

The ether could just be the local gravity potential generated from the
totality of the masses of the universe.

Again must be distinguished the 3D abstract Space from the local ether.

Both could be considered "absolute" depend on what we want to focalize.

best regards

beda pietanza

Patrick Reany:
The detection of absolute spaces

In Newtonian mechanics and LET we have the notions of absolute spaces.

Where exactly do you get the idea that newtonian mechanics has the
idea of absolute space? Does newtonian mechanics single out a
preferred orientation or location in space?

What is absolute about them is that they exist completely independently
of observable matter/energy.

That isn't true. The galilean group is a subgroup of the lorentz
group. It has the same symmetries plus the additional symmetry of
galilean boosts.

"Harry" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
(Patrick Reany) wrote in message
. com...
The detection of absolute spaces

In Newtonian mechanics and LET we have the notions of absolute spaces.

As long as you associate aether with absolute space there is nothing
in Newton's original text that would support the association,Newton
entertained aether in 1670 but drops it in the Principia which is
where the term 'absolute space' pops up and explicitly rejects aether
in Optics.

That simply means that he considered that it was better to use a new word,
to avoid confusion with the kind of ether that he discussed in 1670 - an
ether that could "rotate" and even "fall",

Some will imagine that Newton said something different,some will
bypass Newton/Albert altogether and find themselves with the luxury of
reforging ideas,some may even revisit the ideas of Newton and trace
out where he is operating on a limited cosmological view and where he
is plain wrong but ultimately if you are going to determine that
aether is superfluous,it has nothing to do with Newton and absolute
space.

"I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is,
that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time




and that "pervades the
interstices between the parts of bodies" so that it "would interfere with
and slow down the motions".

You show the same tendency to homogenise Newton's work on
refraction,reflection and colors (Opticks) with the
geometrical/astronomical work (Principia) for you took a sentence from
both works and grafted it into a single statement,this is
inappropriate but this ploy is what created the mess in the first
place.



Obviously absolute space is a very different
concept, but still physical - not nothingness. Anyway, thanks for the
citations!


You're welcome.




1670

Title "De gravitatione" [Complements of Andre Michaud]



Definition 10: Gravitation is the force that induces a body to go
down. Let us understand here by "going down" not only the motion
towards the center of the Earth, but also towards any point or
region; or also, accomplished from any point. Similarly, if we
consider as gravity the conatus* of the ether that rotates about
the Sun in a motion to get away from the center of that body, we
must say that the ether that is moving away is falling. Also,
to remain consistant with the analogy, the plane that is directly
opposed to the determination of gravity or the effort will be
called horizontal.

Besides, the quantity of these powers, that is, the motion, the
force, the conatus, the impetus**, the inertia, the pressure and
the gravity is evaluated in two manners: according to the intensity
of these powers and according to their spread.

* Definition 6: The conatus is the force that an obstacle contraries
or the force [that manifests itself] inasmuch as there is resistance.

** Definition 7: The impetus is the force that is induced into
another body.




1687

Principia

"I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is,
that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time


1704

Opticks

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314]
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."

SNIP further discussion - including a part that I still don't understand
about the motion of the earth, does anyone else understand what Oriel claims
every time about sidereal motion?

Harald

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany:
The detection of absolute spaces

In Newtonian mechanics and LET we have the notions of absolute spaces.

Where exactly do you get the idea that newtonian mechanics has the
idea of absolute space? Does newtonian mechanics single out a
preferred orientation or location in space?


No, because the space I referred to in Newtonian mechanics is for
absolute accelerations, not for absolute velocities or directions. The
result was a theory which made a fundamental distinction between
inertial and noninertial motion.

--------------------
THE FUNDAMENTS OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS
From Science, Washington, D. C. May 24, 1940. [Albert Einstein, found
in Ideas and Opinions]

--- p. 325-6 ---


The first attempt to lay a uniform theoretical foundation was the work
of Newton. In his system everything is reduced to the following
concepts:

(1) Mass points with invariable mass;
(2) action at a distance between any pair of mass points;
(3) law of motion for the mass point.

There was not, strictly speaking, any all-embracing foundation,
because an explicit law was formulated only for the
actions-at-a-distance of gravitation; while for other
actions-at-a-distance nothing was established a priori except the law
of equality of actio and reactio. Moreover, Newton himself fully
realized that time and space were essential elements, as physically
effective factors, of his system, if only by implication.

.......The strange part played by space (or the inertial system) within
the mechanical foundation was also clearly recognized, and criticized
with especial clarity by Ernst Mach.

--------------------------------
ON THE GENERALIZED THEORY OF GRAVITATION From Scientific American,
Vol. 182, No.4. April,1950.

[Found in Ideas and Opinions]


-- p.348 --

The procedure just described overcomes a deficiency in the foundations
of mechanics which had already been noticed by Newton and was
criticized by Leibnitz and, two centuries later, by Mach: inertia
resists acceleration, but acceleration relative to what? Within the
frame of classical mechanics the only answer is: inertia resists
acceleration relative to space. This is a physical property of
space---space acts on objects, but objects do not act on space. Such
is probably the deeper meaning of Newton's assertion spatium est
absolutum (space is absolute). But the idea disturbed some, in
particular Leibnitz, who did not ascribe an independent existence to
space but considered it merely a property of "things" (contiguity of
physical objects). Had his justified doubts won out at that time, it
hardly would have been a boon to physics, for the empirical and
theoretical foundations necessary to follow up his idea were not
available in the seventeenth century.

------------------------------

ON THE METHOD OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS

The Herbert Spencer lecture delivered at Oxford, June 10, 1933.
Published in Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1934.

[found in Ideas and Opinions]

-- p273 --

Newton, the first creator of a comprehensive, workable system of
theoretical physics, still believed that the basic concepts and laws
of his system could be derived from experience. This is no doubt the
meaning of his saying, hypotheses non fingo.

Actually the concepts of time and space appeared at that time to
present no difficulties. The concepts of mass, inertia, and force, and
the laws connecting them, seemed to be drawn directly from experience.
Once this basis is accepted, the expression for the force of
gravitation appears derivable from experience, and it was reasonable
to expect the same in regard to other forces.

We can indeed see from Newton's formulation of it that the concept of
absolute space, which comprised that of absolute rest, made him feel
uncomfortable; he realized that there seemed to be nothing in
experience corresponding to this last concept. He was also not quite
comfortable about the introduction of forces operating at a distance.
But the tremendous practical success of his doctrines may well have
prevented him and the physicists of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries from recognizing the fictitious character of the foundations
of his system.

----------------------------------

ON THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY

Lecture at King's College, London, 1921. Published in Mein Weltbild,
Amsterdam: Querido Verlag,1934.

[found in Ideas and Opinions]

-- 248 --

There is yet another factor underlying the evolution of the general
theory of relativity. As Ernst Mach insistently pointed out, the
Newtonian theory is unsatisfactory in the following respect: if one
considers motion from the purely descriptive, not from the causal,
point of view, it only exists as relative motion of things with
respect to one another. But the acceleration which figures in Newton's
equations of motion is unintelligible [according to Einstein's
epistemology, since it does come out of experience empirically] if one
starts with the concept of relative motion. It compelled Newton to
invent a physical space in relation to which acceleration was supposed
to exist. This introduction ad hoc of the concept of absolute space,
while logically unexceptionable, nevertheless seems unsatisfactory.
Hence Mach's attempt to alter the mechanical equations in such away
that the inertia of bodies is traced back to relative motion on their
part not as against absolute space but as against the totality of
other ponderable bodies. In the state of knowledge then existing, his
attempt was bound to fail.

[Thus the thought experiment which Einstein gave at the beginning of
his 1916 paper on GR about bodies in relative rotation.]

----------------------------------------

RELATIVITY AND THE PROBLEM OF SPACE

From the revised edition of Relativity, the Special and the General
Theory: A Popular Exposition. Translated by Robert W. Lawson. London:
Methuen, 1954.

--- p. 360 ---

It is characteristic of Newtonian physics that it has to ascribe
independent and real existence to space and time as well as to matter,
for in Newton's law of motion the concept of acceleration appears. But
in this theory, acceleration can only denote "acceleration with
respect to space:' Newton's space must thus be thought of as "at
rest," or at least as "unaccelerated," in order that one can consider
the acceleration, which appears in the law of motion, as being a
magnitude with any meaning. Much the same holds with time, which of
course likewise enters into the concept of acceleration. Newton
himself and his most critical contemporaries felt it to be disturbing
that one had to ascribe physical reality both to space itself as well
as to its state of motion; but there was at that time no other
alternative, if one wished to ascribe to mechanics a clear meaning.

---------------------------------------

THE MECHANICS OF NEWTON AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THEORETICAL PHYSICS

[found in Ideas and Opinions]

-- 258 --

.....

I. Newton's endeavors to represent his system as necessarily
conditioned by experience and to introduce the smallest possible
number of concepts not directly referable to empirical objects is
everywhere evident; in spite of this he set up the concept of absolute
space and absolute time. For this he has often been criticized in
recent years. But in this point Newton is particularly consistent. He
had realized that observable geometrical quantities (distances of
material points from one another) and their course in time do not
completely characterize motion in its physical aspects. He proved this
in the famous experiment with the rotating vessel of water. Therefore,
in addition to masses and temporally variable distances, there must be
something else that determines motion. That "something" he takes to be
relation to "absolute space." He is aware that space must possess a
kind of physical reality if his laws of motion are to have any
meaning, a reality of the same sort as material points and their
distances.

---------------------------------

Patrick

"Harry" wrote in message ...
SNIP further discussion - including a part that I still don't understand
about the motion of the earth, does anyone else understand what Oriel claims
every time about sidereal motion?

Harald

There is a guy in another forum trying to discuss the stresses on the
Earth's surface as the Earth's axial rotation remains constant while
its orbital motion varies,this is in respect to earthquake prediction
and it is new and noteworthy,perhaps even giving a better
understanding of plate tectonics.

The astronomical justification for the sidereal value (23 hours 56 min
04 sec) or circumpolar motion of the local stars fixed directly to the
Earth's rotation through 360 degrees is facilitated by combining axial
and orbital motion into a single sidereal motion hence no discussion
between the stresses between the constant axial rotation and variable
orbital motion on the Earth's surface is possible,valid physics going
to waste in other words.

The astronomical format for the sidereal value is in error and does
not accurately reflect the motions of the Earth,axial or orbital.


http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...mekeeping.html

http://www.absolutebeginnersastronomy.com/sidereal.gif