Re: Poincare conjecture


Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote:
Nothing really matter, as I would be recycling, a little bit more deeper, as
however for instance, along the physics or along an intuitive physics, which
is used to keep any fastidious a track of how objects fall, bounce, and
bend.

Therefore, along that matter, its core intuition is a definitely the concept
of the object, which occupies one place or a specific corner along a
specific space, whether, it would exists for a continuous portion of a time,
and follows all the directions of a motion and a force.


The mathematicians idea of 'intuition' is often a poor imitation of
real intuitive intelligence.Intuitive intelligence affirms or rejects
notions based on physical considerations therefore it encompasses all
intellectual reasoning and facts brought to bear on topics such as
solar system motion and structure.The celestial sphere structure of
Newtonian ballistics is unworkable hence there is never a real need to
work with the later exotic notions such as relativity as other such
junk.

The empirical world of Newton is all arrows pointing somewhere rather
than dealing with planetary geometry in motion,insofar as the core of
that Newtonian agenda is the wrong value for axial rotation or what
amounts to the same thing,the justification of a return of a star to a
meridian in 23 hours 56 min through the axial and orbital motions of
the Earth.You seem perfectly happy and comfortable with celestial
sphere geometry and its 'warped ' nature so have a ball.



However, these are a strictly and absolutely not a Newton's directions but
something a definitely more and more closer to the medieval conception, of
an energy or a momentum of a moving object, that a definitely keeps an
object in a motion and gradually dissipates, and this is a simply what is
all about.

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156956662.324545.166000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Excuse me for recycling the mid 19th century article which presents a
real dilemma and not the exotic fictional ones that appeared later to
support the emergence of the 1905 concept -

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=
bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425

These men were reaching the walls of Newton's celestial sphere geometry
and could not find a way out,rather than criticising these people I
comprehend completely the situation they inherited from many different
viewpoints and especially their ability to admit that whatever rut they
found themselves in,there appeared to be no way out of the diemma.

There actually is a way out but apparently nobody has the courage to
deal with the celestial sphere core lurking behind the Newtonian system
which influenced all later attempts to deal with planetary motion and
solar system structure.I put it down to unfamiliarity with the
original astronomical working principles however rather than react,as
Newtonians were once want to do,it is becoming a pleasure to see
glimpses of dialogue beginning to appear.





Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote:
Yes indeed!

But whatsoever, a people they do love a cartoons, at least, it does
provides
them by a strictly an other and more realistic image of the illusion
turning
around their existence, as it does also, makes to run farther from
anything
absolutely a conventional, which is the ultimate structuration of the
illusion.

However, you mentioned the principles, as I would be very glad to mention
to
you a dialogue about the principles, which it would be as follows :

Lämmel : Is the world picture resulting from the conceptions of the
relativity principles an inevitable one, or are the assumptions arbitrary
and expedient but not necessary?

Einstein : The principle of relativity is a principle that narrows the
possibilities, it is not a model, just as the second law of thermodynamics
is not a model.

Lämmel : The question is whether the principle is inevitable and necessary
or merely expedient.

Einstein : The principle is logically not necessary, it would be necessary
only if it would be made such by experience. But it is made only probable
by
experience.

Therefore, for Henri Poincaré, also, principles were made probable by
experience, because, they could be used against the grain of experience
and
always at the cost of an immense inconvenience.

However, something, which it would be a systematically turned to an
illusion
prefabrication, a definitely as a matter a fact.

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156932418.810371.58930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote:
Therefore, what would follows, has ha beed addressed to the foundations
of
a
geometry, geodesy, physics and philosophy, by Henri Poincaré himself as
it
would be an other fiction for you :


He is indeed another cartoon character in this charade,yes.



1 - There is no absolute space, and we only conceive of relative motion,
and
yet in a most cases mechanical facts are enunciated as if there is an
absolute space to which they can be refered.


Absolute and relative space ,at least in Newtonian terms,represent his
idiosyncratic resolution for retrogrades and his false conclusion that
planetary orbital motion is Not seen directly from Earth when it is .

The Newtonian mutation of the Copernican resolution for heliocentric
motion is not at all complex but it is geometric therefore this
business of the existence and non existence of 'absolute space' is a
waste of time.



2 - There is no absolute time. When we say that two periods are equal,
the
statement has no meaning, and can only acquire a meaning by a
convention.


Again,the creation of the AU through celestial sphere geometry by
borrowing 3 minutes 56 seconds from terrestial longitudes and inserting
it into a .986 degree orbital displacement -

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG


Newton correctly identifies the Equation of Time and what it does -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time" Newton

The Equation of Time is what equalises the natural unequal day to the
24 hour day by means of the noon correction and addition or subtraction
of minutes and seconds.This pre-Copernican principle was perfectly
adapted by the heliocentric astronomers to the principle that the Earth
has an independent axial rotation hence the two step process which
creates the 24 hour day first and then its Wesytern application to
axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in
total.

Newton in trying to 'define' time did not even recognise the flaw in
John Flamsteed's celestial sphere reasoning and the Earth's rotation.

Big mistake Mr Quahi,very,very ugly mistake.






3 - Not only have we no direct intuition of the equality of two periods,
but
we have not even direct intuition of the simultaneity of two events
occurring in two different places. I have - Henri Poincaré - exolained
this
in an article entitled " Mesure du Temps ".


They had no intuition,period !,not Poincare,not Mach,not Albert,none of
them.

Now,Newton narrowed the view to suit himself and his own agenda and
this is fine,I know his maneuvering and clever do it was,it now shuts
the door on genuine investigators who may not wish to make grand
sweeping gestures about celestial phenomena but may wish to work with
an accurate version of planetary motions for climatological and
geological purposes.




4 - Finally, is not Euclidean geometry in itself only a kind of
convention
of language?

-- Henri Poincaré


The house always wins and the geometric house which affirms or rejects
concepts based on physical considerations spits out the Newtonian
conceptions from the great heliocentric astronomical tradition.You are
certainly welcome to discuss the ins and outs of your system but it all
goes back to the simple flaw lurking benesth it all -celestial sphere
geometry.

The Newtonian mutation is harder to spot than the Tychonic but I have
done my part to highlight it as absolute/relative space in the matter
of retrogrades and how they are resolved .

"And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide exactly
the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to
Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless
there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some
physical consideration [causa alicujus considerationis physicae]....
But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of that

diversity in physical matters [in physicisvarietas], . . " KEPLER


Thank you for being civil and I enjoyed the polite conversation for
all this is not proving people wrong but rather to recover accurate
working principles.




--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156878161.620880.27580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Look,if you can believe the fiction then good for you. As a compromise
I have often posted an excellent article from the mid 19th century from
genuine theorists who realised they had reached a dead end ,50 years
later they created a fiction to overcome the dilemma existing in
Newton's calendrically driven clockwork solar system.

Look at the top right column -



http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=
bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425

They dumped an aether on Newton through 'absolute space' anyway and
pretended to reject it all over again.

These dusty characters from the 20th century were well pleased with
themselves and their localised solution for planetary motion but this
was before the solar system's motion in one direction around the
galactic axis was discovered.Do you not think that after 80 years that
some bright spark might consider grafting in the affects of compound
motions such as planetary motion around the Sun and simultaneously
moving with the solar system in one direction around the galactic axis.




Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote:
For the time being, as along that moment, Henri Poincaré has had
lights,
a
mathematical physics as it has had received along himself, its first a
powerful ideal among and from especially the gravity, however, which
it
has
had been, just specified as follows :

Every body in the universe, every grain of sand, every star was
attracted
to
every other body by a force inversely proportional to the square of
their
separation.

However, that kind of a stipulation has had always varied and applied
to
a
different kinds of a forces, but a definitely as always, a new
principles
were needed, a principles that would, at least, characterize the whole
of
the process without any specification to any detail along any machine.

Therefore, a new principles has had included that a stipulation, like
for
instance, that the mass of a system always stayed the same, whether,
that
the energy of a system remained constant along a time, and this is
what
it
has had been all about.


--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156798577.824353.96370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Steve son,you have been sleeping all your existence, a silly attempt
to
fit a 1898 science fiction novel into a formal framework should now
look plain silly .

Look out into the great celestial arena and draw you gaze away from
the
silly 20th century excesses.Look out with the eyes of Kepler and
then
compare it with that diseased Newtonian mind -

Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by JOHANNES KEPLER


Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun
which

is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their whole
system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe
wishes,but
in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one place,while the
centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.


Argument 10


" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows;
the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this
is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but
the

circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun."


Johannes Kepler


_______________________________________________


PHENOMENON 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." newton


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





carlip-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

JanPB <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
carlip-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Now, assuming Perelman is right, no one will have to ask
about homology three-spheres.

A minor nit: it's "homotopy sphere". Homology spheres OTOH do
exist
and
in fact Poincare constructed one himself (I think his example
was
the
+1 surgery on the trefoil knot in S^3) and then on the same
breath -
ever so innocently - he asked: "OK, that was that, so how about
homotopy 3-spheres now"? Hee hee...

Ouch! I knew that... taht's what I get for posting after not
enough sleep.

Steve Carlip


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Poincare conjecture
    ... Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote: ... of non-Euclidean just as well as in an Euclidean geometry. ... plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Poincare conjecture
    ... Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote: ... plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well ... intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. ... Newtonian ballistics is unworkable hence there is never a real need to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... God consists in the denial of him by the atheist, ... Ahmed Ouahi, Architect ... >>>>George Hammond wrote: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... that you are a just a matter of repetition turning around the universe. ... Ahmed Ouahi, Architect ... > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote: ... >>>>and repeating again and again, what it has had been done and made ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... Ahmed Ouahi, Architect ... > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote: ... >>that among all his creations, his preference goes always to the humans. ... >>and repeating again and again, what it has had been done and made without ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast