The solution was clearly found by the ancient Sumerian and Akkadian peoples , the Dravidian and Harrapan Indus Valley civilisations and the Mongol chinese steppe and Plain civilisations, all of whom had the wheel and the 60 modulo arithmetics.

The issue is a pragmatic metrical one, and relies on skillful Neusis, as well as expertise with circles

Such an expertise is now called sacred geometry, but it is a science of spherical and circular relations. Of all the forms we have explored it is the circle that encodes proportion in its simplest form: one perimeter to 1 diameter!

We all accept that a circle can be patterned by six petals formed by 6 overlapping circles. We accept the number 6 because we see symmetry. This means we cannot distinguish the 6 forms we see in the pattern by any known or used measurement; accept by calculus! In that branch of ” precision” we find pi to be not 3 but 3.1415… Because our calculation is not based on observation but by a division process!

The difference is profound. Do we trust our eyes or our formal calculation process? Both, because as it turns out our ancestors did not need precision. 6 was good enough for them even though we know that it should be 6.28…

When your compasses do not quite meet the diameter we are taught to do it again until it does, because the radius must step 6 times into the circumference! It does not, but by convention we say it does.

The pattern of 6 is so compelling , we want 6 equilateral triangles as a constructed Constant of space. Construct them in a circle and they fit, construct them in a tessellation and they fit, but they do not precisely fit a circle anymore! The construction in the circle has slightly distorted the plane forms.

Using a constant radius we can construct the sacred geometrical flower pattern. That is when we can start to set out proportions . While we ca crowd 6 around a centre of a circle with 1 radius we can crowd 9 around a circle with 3 times the radius! This means we can trisect the diamond made of 2 equilateral triangles . But we have to use the chord length of the 1/3 rd circle to step these off on the larger( 3 x ) circle.

This proportion exists in this set up because circles are proportions. Without a rigid measure it is fiddly to do it is much simpler with a set of measuring tools that cn retain and transfer these lengths to the proper positions

There exists a circle for which this length is the precise chord which trisect the arc int 3 similar sectors. Finding it by trial and error can be made easier by using the sacred geometry to narrow the search down. The Neusis becomes simpler and more precise.

Draw an angle and make the limbs or rays long enough to step off 3 radii. The radius is the semi circle drawn at the vertex of the angle, extend your compass to 3 radii and draw the semi circle,

Using a pair of rigid divider measure the chord of the angle in the smaller semi circle.

Step this off on the larger arc until step 3( which is too small ) and step 4 (which is too large).

Leaving the dividers fixed , now use the intersection of the upper ray between steps 3 and 4 with the semi circle as the centre for a circle that has a radius given by the displacement to step 4. Retaining that radios go to step 3 and mark an intersect toward 4 as the centre of a second circle through 3

Now using the point of intersection of these circles with the ray draw a semi circle from the vertex. Using the dividers step off to point 2 along this arc. Setting your compass to the dosplacent from the point on the ray cut by this arc( the same as that cut by circles at 3 and 4) now draw a circle that intersects circles 3 and 4

The circles are a probability space . Where they intersect is probably the point for the radius of a semi circle which can be trisected by the dividers precisely.

There may be 2 intersections that are clear. Choose the one that fits best.

Where these circles cut the upper ray is a point which was used to draw a semi circl. That semi circle will be unable to contain more than two steps within the arc of the angle.

The demonstration relies on neusis so be as accurate as possible.

The empirical deduction is that the 3 x radius semi circle is going to present an arc( the angle) which being less curved will be too big, by a proportion . Points 3 and 4 are used to narrow the space that the sought for circular arc must pass through. By using the 4th point as a radius displacement and drawing a circle the bounds can be seen to decrease until the circle cuts the upper ray. Thus any circle drawn from the vertex passing through that circle has a high probability of approaching the required radius from above.

The second circle passing through point 3 from a marked centre has the probability of a circle approaching the correct circle from below. Thus both bound a circle which will likely contain 3 to 4 steps

The second circle will bound a circle that is likely to contain 2 to 3 steps

Where they intersect has a high probability of being the correct circle requiring precisely 3 steps to equal the angle.

Clearly the dividers must be kept rigid and the stepping off done as accurately as possible.

Should the result not be “perfect” then the two guiding semi circles, just drawn , can be used to repeat the method.

You will find that if the angle is a 60° or 90° or some multiple of those the circles at 3 Anne 4 will very nearly coincide. Do not neglect to differentiate the points of intersection.

At first I thought this was a method of approximation relying on proportions un related to sacred geometry, but when I saw that the circle count was 4:3 for the 120° I could see then the sacred geometrical pattern peeking through. The first radius would cut the smaller circle into 6, but the chord was cutting the 3 x circle into approximately 12. The circle I sought would be cut precisely into 9 by that same chord.

These are empirical findings, the sort every geometer should be looking for as a matter of professional expertise!

]]>

We mathematicians have become obsolete.

We were doomed to die out as soon as “we” were born in the medieval period as a class of astrologers whose main task was to calculate the positions of planets and stars and the length breadth weights and measures of the empire.

Prior to that only Astrologers were given that respect and position within society, based on the Sumerian and Egyptian empires and their need for insight from the heavenly gods as to the opportune time for any and every venture. Such shamans using various practices were called sages and seers , whose visions were highly sought after and whose interpretations were regarded with awe.

The quest was to see, to visualise how any event would carry out its due process within the heavenly cycles.

It was the Pythagorean school who developed the ancient arts in Astrology and shamanism into a single or Monas-tic tradition. They collected together the worlds knowledge of Astrology and systematised it gradually into a coherent system based on the Mosaics of their Mousaion or temples to the Musai.

Such temples collected all the traditions and curated them , bringing together a vast worldly knowledge of Astrology and the Arts. To study at one of these Monasteries was to devote ones life to ceaseless research and curation, finding thought patterns that gave you mastery over the worlds astrological and Artistic knowledge, finding those patterns by a gift of the Muses!

The Aristotelian Lyceum replaced that whimsical tradition by hard logical and taxonomic learnings. For that reason alone the position of Mathematikos was doomed!

Prior to Plato extending the reach of the Pythagorean school and praxis into Athens Greece , Pythagoras was reputed to have established a Mousaion in Sicily under the Patronage of a local chieftain who provided the “Monks” with protection in return for their public services of education. Those that came to listen soon divided into the Akoustia and the devotees.

The Akoustia came to listen to the public teachings but the devotees came to learn and to be inspired of a Muse so as to teach and express the gift of that Muse.

As such there was no formal curriculum as in the Taxonomically driven Aristotelian Lyceum , instead discourses on topics were given by the Mathematikos, those qualified to teach, and debate and discussion ensued. The Monk or devotee was set Koans, test designed to bring them into close vicinity of the Muses. The Musai would then whimsically impart gifts to the Devotee. What they may be would become apparent as the gift was expressed.

One became a Mathematikos, not by examination and jumping over hurdles, but rather by Merit, that is by the acknowledgement of other Mathematikoi and even non Mathematikoi that one had the gift of a Muse, and particularly the gift of astrology and it’s counterpart geometry.

A Mathematikos was thus a gifted person who could reason by the astrological and geometrical patterns of the heavenly Musai, in particular circular or periodic proportions.

The development of the Arithmoi which was the distinguished Pythagorean name for what we now call mosaics was key to all astrology and geometry, for by these fundamental patterns all proportions were distinguished .

When Aristotle failed to attain the Status of Mathrmatikos, it was not because he was not gifted, but rather because he did not merit it among the Pythagoreans. He openly disputed with them over the logic of their principles and while he remained a firm Platonist he broke away from some key Pythagorean teachings.

Nevertheless others found him to be remarkably gifted and Learned and Philip of Macedonia employed him to tutor his 2 sons Alexander the great and Phillip. Alexander was very taken by Aristotle, regarding him as his Secret diviner, for him alone. Thus he was annoyed to hear that Aristotle had established an Academy to rival the Athenian Platonic outpost of Pythagoreanism.

The fates of empires lead to the dissolution of his academy while the Platonic academy survived until Roman times and even beyond in some meagre way enamoured by enthusiasts. Aristotles one salvation was the Arabs and Islamist rulers who defeating the Hellenists found Aristotles ideas to have been spread by Alexander everywhere. Thus they adopted them as clearly important to developing a strong Empire.

Later when Rome sacked Athens and the Platonists fled, Pythagorean literature came into the possession of the Islamic scholars, who mistaking it for a version of Aristotelianism mishandled its provenance and bound together two formerly incompatible traditions!

The Pythagoreans were moved to display their philosophy, the Aristotelians were moved to taxonomise it! What we call geometry was and is a counterpart to Astrology, but the principles of both arose out of the Artisanship of the temple builders and mosaic layers, the Tekne or Mechanics in Greek society .

Because of their low status, but absolutely essential skills they were a distinct slave class or worker class. As such they were employed by the wealthy with reasonable respect to their skills, but no high borne would deign to learn such skills! That is until they became a Pythagorean!

In India the Temple builders were again a distinct group and they handed down trade secrets in Ganitas and Sutras that were the aphoristic stock in trade of the Indian temple Astrologers

The Arab empire firmly combined these 2 streams of similar wisdoms into Geometry and Algebra . Between the 2 the Arithmoi sat as a peculiar skill which eventually in the Arabic universities became Arithmetic of Numbers, and Number theory. It was also called Kaballah by certain foreigners from mQuaballah to calculate, and even called Gematria( from geometria) or later Numerology.

This is the background to what Medieval scholars of the 14 th century began to call Mathematics. From arithmetical arts to arithmetical arts mainly employing the Algebraic rhetoric to mathematics seems to be the uneven course of the spread of this idea that 2 dysfunctional systems can be combined into one subject area.

Finally in the 1800 the crisis was reached, and geometry and mathematics was about to collapse. Algebra came to the rescue and from it analysis, and the problem limb Geometry was left to wither away!

However Hermann Grassmann thought this was a great injustice. He separated the geometry from Arithmetic and pointed out that that just left Formal expertises which were now inter communicant with a vibrant Geometry, Kinematics and Phorometry and Mechanics.

It is the Mechanics who in Archimedes time displayed the circular proportions on the Antikythera mechanism. It is the mechanics who displayed the polynomial calculations on mechanical computers and it is the mechanics and now Technologists who have refined the mechanisms to display the proportions on these mosaic screens,just as the Pythagoreans did.

The movement of the astrological bodies need only to be proportionately displayed, that was the goal of every Pythagorean. By so doing all wisdoms and knowledge can be organised and cohered or adhered to the great cycle and periods of the heavenly gods, and the opportune time for every venture clearly displayed, where possible.

We have no need of Mathematics so called now, because we can see on a computer monitor all we wish to envision, visualise and more!

What we require are those gifted individuals and mechanics who can build curate and maintain our new temples of the Musai.

]]>

There appears to be some confusion about Einsteins use of the Newtonian inertial space concept, denoted by the term inertial reference frame.

Newton based his philosophy of measure on 3 absolutes : space,time and force. This in itself represented his elaboration of the Galilean principle expressed in the Dialogo and elsewhere, that the universe was a fractal based on orbits around centres themselves orbiting a centre and so on. Each centre therefore was locally absolute as far as telescope observation could be adduced.

The system of absolutes were a classical assumption reflecting ideas of a perfect reality untouched by human or corruptible ntities, and therefor suitable for general philosophicl investigation without impugning moral character or religious faith

Thus Newton like Aristole started his Philoophy of quantity from what he felt to be the most unimpeachable principled.

His goal was not to determine the nature of observed powers and their cause, but rather to define reliable measures of these powers as they were identified by philosophers. In this way he hoped to improve the quality of philosophical speculation, founding it on a method of quantitative measurements.

The Mechnics of constructing these measures or Metrons were advancing significantly in regard to precision markings and materials or length nd precision time pieces that kept time to an accuracy of a few seconds in the year! These advances in time were due to the Huygens formula for the period of a pendulum swing which basically made it proportional to thr square root of the length producted by a fudge factor.

These advancements went hand in hand with the commercial and trade expansion in Europe and the expansion of naval supremacy in seamanship of the British naval fleet. By these means Britain acquired an empire leading to conquest and olonization and the spread of British imperial weights measures and time.

Ths a ships clock was synchronised at port , taken on a voyage around the world and then compared with the clock not travelled. Since the clocks barly differed the notion of a constant time was born and personified in accurate timepieces!

By this means an inertial reference frame can be established throughout the empire.

The yardstick and the timepiece were now considered as constants and transportable around th world. Thus a local reference system is extended to cover the whole of space . Time was constant, but the event timing would be different at each position because of the circular nature of the globe. Thus the absolute time is never change, but the time relative to an event could be adjusted to local ..”Tyme” that is time oaf an observed event or a record of a posopition of sun, moon and stars.

Thus sunrise in Thailand will say occur at 9 pm in imperils time, but that would be adjusted 6 am local time!

Newtons method of measuring sound dpeed involves a simplelocal measuring system for distance and time. To extend it to other places required individuals with the same yardstick snd timepieces in all parts of thr world. Thus the speed of Sound locally can be determined as well as extra local measures between such observers. This system of observers is the concept of the inertial reference frame system.

The role of the observe is to adjust the time by setting up a relative time system so locals feel resonsbly in sync with the sun, however the absolute time was that which was measured by the timepiece, which was synced to imperial time standards..

Local speed of sound and inertial reference speed of sound were found to cluster around a figure which supported the sumption that it was a constant.

The tendency to assume it was a constant arose out of the limitations in measuring it accurately by pendulum, and the sense of hearing the echo as a constant time interval. On the basis of this assumption newtons work on the compressive wave nature of sound soon added evidence of the constancy of this speed, especially when resonance and other measurements agreed with this assumption.

However it was known that the speed of sound did vary with experimental conditions, and do theoretical models were devised to account for these variations satisfactorily for perceived parameters. The Doppler effect was therefore a revelation.

The effect of assuming a constant speed for sound led philosophers to test that assumption by making deductive predictions. Doppler, on the other hand observed a variation he could not explain by the known parametric modifiers. It required a deep understanding of the relation between pitch and vibration, and vibration as a frequency of a known wave length or precisely a nodal antipodal compression of the air medium.

By this time philosophers had worked out a strict”proportional ratio between pitch and frequency and using the constancy of the speed an empirically observable wave or deformation length. They also were familiar with wave superposition and wave transparency to each other., but they had not had the chance to observe any source moving at speeds substantially close to the speed of sound. In fact it was commonly believed to be impossible for humans to survive such speeds. So it was a good catch by Doppler which not only further supported the wave nature of sound, but it’s constancy.

Thus time and timepieces were validated as also referencing an absolute constant, and the practices of philosophers went unscrutinized until Lorentz, Poincare and others . It just so happened that Einstein was able to draw on these erudite considerations to frame his ideas in1905. His papers rocked the academic world, which until then had stuffily ignored the works of Einsteins predecessors and fellow questioning philosophers. However it was Einstein who got all the glory, a fact that wrinkles to this day!

The practice of mathematical theoreticians in reducing the theory to very special cases allows for some fundamental errors to creep in as well as common sense errors to be excluded. One of the simplest is in terminology.

An event in special relativity in the reduced case is defined by a spacetime coordinate. However an event in any sense is a behaviour or activity, the space time coordinate does not define that! Thus the practice of assuming an event is a function of space time coordinates ensued. This is a simple reversal. Space time coordinates are functions of the event behaviours!

To illustrate. In the inertial reference frame , if I give the location as Rangoon and the imperial time as 8 am , the question is what are the events happening there at that time!. Suppose the event was midday, that in itself makes a nonsense of an imperial time of 8 am! . We avoid this nonsense by stating the event as a parameter of imperial location and imperial time. This is not the usual way we describe an event , but that usual description. Highlights the activity not the dependency on time and location in a universal or imperial sense.. The event is independent of the reference frame . The reference frame is always dependent on the event. I see a behaviour and I establish a reference frame to describe it. So I and the event, the observer and the event determine the reference frame. An inertial reference frame is such because it’s parameters are the observers and the event. In most simple cases the event that defines a reference frame is a swinging pendulum observed by an observer at some location. As the observer relates to that location it does so by relating to the constancy of the swinging pendulum. The constancy or periodicity of that event and the constancy of a yardstick are used to construct the inertial regpference frame. Thus the frame is dependent on the observer and the event, not the other way round.

By this time philosophers had worked out a strict mathematical”

]]>

It was a bold proposal that states that the quantity of matter is conserved in a chemical reaction. While it is not drawn attention to this quantity of matter is an Alchemical concept used and defined by Newton as a measure related to the ratio of motives of material and air, and the measure of thr volume of that ratio for the bulk of each object.

Enclosing an object in a sturdy glass container allowed one to assume that all quantity of matter in that volume was isolated. . No matter what was in that volume a relative density was assigned to it via the prescribed calculation. For this reason material was not distinguished and became called Mass.

However careful chemists were able to use the mass as a stepping stone to tabulate pure materials and so characterise them. Then the reacting of several materials together in a sealed container could be shown not to alter this mass characteristic, despite the materials being utterly transformed!

The quantity of matter is part of a chain of concepts Newton established to describe a centripetal/ centrifugal measurement system.. It related every part of an isolated system through these force measures

Conservation of space however has a astrological use, where it is assumed that space is absolute, isolated and still. . With such a conception a boundary change foes not affect space. In that regard space passes Tintoretto and out of any dynmic boundary, at least absolute space does. Fractal space behaves differently, and do fractal geometry is different.

Suppose now a circle is squashed, then the space that was inside now stands outside the new topological boundary. However for a ” real” object that space would be deformed within the new boundary , possibly acting to restore the boundary to its initial position.

Using absolute space can I demonstrate that a sector is dual to a half of a rectangle formed by the circle radius and the sector arc length?

It is possible to establish this fairly simply providing absolute space is used, and a specific case involving the arc length equal to the circle diameter is used.

The concept requires also a secure definition of a good or true line sometimes confused with a straight line in other contexts where it is not necessarily the case. This good line must be the line of dual seemeia, or indicators of where arcs crossif drawn from 2 fixed centres , using the dual radii for each centre..

Given this good line a circular sector with arc lengt equal to I diameter of its circle is placed on the line and rolled so that every point on the arc is brought into contact with only one point on the line.. The centre or vertex of this sector moves one diameter tracing out a rectangle with the radius as the other side.

Conservation of space or absolute space means that the space in this rectangle passes through and or is contained within the arc sector.. Thus the rectangle contains some of all the space swept out by the arc sector. In addition all space has passed symmetrically through this rectangular figure, with space entering and leaving the arc at the same rate.relative to this rectangle.

At the end of this role a symmetrical figure represents the whole process. What we note is this symmetry allows us to half all the spaces in the diagram.the rectangle is created by the sector rolling, thus the whole space in the sector has passed into an through this rectangular space.. We see that there is as much outside this space at the beginning as there is at the end. . This rectangular space therefore has transferred its space into the rectangle . At one stage it was wholly inside the complete rectangle to be. So the space in the rectangle is 2 times the space within the sector. If any space was compressed into it the shape would not be symmetrical . It also took all of its fixed boundary o create this shape nd mark out the rectangle..

A legitimate question is how do you know it is transformed into the rectangle? The answer is the arc sector is not transformed into the rectangle . It sweeps through the rectangle, creating the rectangle, thus it’s space places itself everywhere in the rectangle..the rectangle thus must be at least one of the 2 sectors in the symmetric form . If it was just less than 2 thesector would would not extend beyond symmetrically. If more than 2 again it would over extend. Precisely 2 retains symmetry and maintains conservation of dpace.

It is worth establishing this point with several reasonable or proportional examples, after which we may establish the discovery of Archimedes that an object must displace its own space in order to occupy a different space, or more dynamically an object rolling through space must displace multiples of its own space or multiples of its own space must pass through it.. In the case of a circular disc we may then establish a multiple factor of 1/4 the rectangle it cuts out to quantify its space. In the case of a sphere this reduces to 4/24 of the cuboid it cuts out.

The shapes of space formed when working directly with the circle disc or sphere I call Shunyasutras. The ” rectilineal” shapes are distinct because the good or true line is precisely good or true to itself. This good line is defined however by a property of circles that intersect because they are centred at precisely 2 centres.mthe point of intersection are called dual points. The dual points that define a good line or a true line are intersections of identical radial displacements from the 2 centres. Shapes of space with a true line fit together along those lines precisely or they don’t.. If they do not the shapes are not dual! It is this powerful notion of duality that is carried through from point to curve to line to shape of space as surface or volume.this notion of duality pplies to the Shunyasutras, where a curved arc sector if it is dualed is also a good or true curve!

The straight line however has taken a dominant position in our psyche, despite the fact that it is never found in nature. It is a formal construct that dominates human evaluation schemes. This was not always the case. The circle played a deeper magical role in the past particularly in its rivalry ith the spiral.

The absolute empirical dominance of the “spiral” shape and dynamic of space is remarkable when oe realises how it is obscured from general metrical perception. In distant times past the circle grew to dominate magical lore and triumphed when it was believed to contain or constrain the spiral. Both these. We’re represented as dragons or serpents

However to measure with the circle always required skill and precise application. The precision of dual points as circle reference points came to dominate the practice of measuring with the circle. The straight lined ruler based on a right angled triangle within a semi circle became an indispensable tool of architecture. The lore of circles that underpins it was soon pushed out of the common thought and left for experts and philosophers to investigate. . Thus I have no intuition of duality of the Shunya ultras, how one shape may be used with a transformed one, and what topological constraints are required to declare duality or fit”.

In the case of arc sectors I can show how the rectangle formed between the arc rolled out ant the diameter contains 2 overlapping arc sectors. The question is does the overlap fit the space mot overlapped?mto answer that question I have to employ symmetry observations and exhaustive comparisons, which call upon the notion of ” fit” I have established for the straight line.

The circular gnomon and Lunes play a historical part in the metrication of the Shunyasutras

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Arbelos.html

]]>

However it is not as bad as that. Reading the Astological principles further in order to understand the introduction of centrifugal force, I find that Newton ascribes its description to the excellent mr Halleys work on hoological oscillation! Of course he mentions Huygens and Wren.

The first reveal was newtons scholium on the astrological definitions of various quantities and measures and the general relativity of these terms snd ideas. In so doing he describes certain absolutes as concepts the reader is expected to accept without question, either as astrological or commonly accepted among philosophers. Thus without being immersed in his times it is easy to miss certain subtexts implied by certain ideas.

The second reveal is the absolute geometrical nature of the theorems and corollaries by which he derives the centripetal force . In so doing the reader is drawn away from the heavens to geometrical figures. Having demonstrated in corollaries certain ” mathematical” relations, he asks why they may not now be applied to the motions of orbits in space!

Well the reason is, in my opinion that the construction of the curves is so evidently geometrical that one must also suppose that this is how god does it in the heavens! . This is evidently not a sustainable assumption, except if one be a believer in god. Yet I caution that the god who this might be attributed to states plainly that he will not allow this assumption!

The more reasonable circumstance is to say that this method is a geometrical model which must prove itself by empirical observation to be useful, and nothing more. This utilitarian view avoids the difficulties arising from the models short comings.

Now we may see how Newton models a centripetal force , drawing a body from a rectilinear course ( potentially) continually into a curve..mthat the rectilineal motion is but a device is evident by Newtons process of eliminating it to the curve, and stating certain laws in terms of the arcs, not the tangents or chords of them.. And yet there are sod who insist on the rectilineal as the true motion, denying the curve of the orbit.

Now as a second but contrary proof Newton refers to Halleys centrifugal force. This is the force imparted to a curved or circular boundary by an object constrained within it! Thus the object by impulses on the circular boundary transmits a centrifugal force, o which the boundary responds so that the object is turned into such sn orbit as might be considered circumnavigating. Newton observes that the force that expands the circle outwards is equal and opposite to his centripetal force, by which the centre attracts an object into an orbit..

Thus the curved orbit is constrained within 2 encasing methods which both agree in the evaluation of the force required to turn a moving obje with certain velocity into a curved orbit.

Precisely how this is done is not here discussed, but how it may be modelled by infinitely reducing triangular areas containing the curve is. Once again this is a model process we are asked to apply to the behaviours in space, whose mysterious actions remain mysterious, unless you believe this model process to be actually how Nature does it!

]]>

Because density is a ratio of motive vis, it is physically dimensionless, but this is a mathematical nicety. Density is clearly a force! Within the Newtonian force or vis system it could be no other. Due to the Abdolute nature of these force or vis systems it is clear that pressure , and the distribution of pressure , the pressure gradients etc are a better conceptualisation of vis than the hijacked term force,

Density is a substance pressure, and it presses toward the centre of an absolute system. Substances thus separate by the pressures involved with densities leading to regionalisation, stratification dynamic interactions between and around densities.

]]>

It became clear that density was an obscured force or pressure. Density pushed less density to one side and occupied the lowest position. It thus behaves precisely like the Newyonial motive force. But volume of density or bulk of density also determined the amount of centripetal force , quantity of matter was alike to the definition of the quantity of motive.

The quantity of motion is a quantitative bridge between the quantity of matter and the motive vis measure. Thus it becomes apparent that Newton leads the reader into the complex quantitative system he adduced from the Galilean principle. This principle itself was adduced from observations he made of the Jovian system. In addition Galileos observations of the planet Venus allowed him to set out a convincing empirical basis to the fancy of Copernicus that the sun was the centre of the universe.

In the Dialogo he sets out amusingly his ideas in a discourse, so that the pros and cons, the propositions and objections, the arguments and counter arguments are set forth. Here in words supported by a diagram he sets out the Galilean principle as a fractal structure of local space. For it to convince his peers it was necessary for each part of the fractal system to be absolute. This meant that the Jovian system was independent of the solar system, and so the system moved around the sun as if the parts were not drawn to the sun but solely to the planet Jupiter.

Similarly the planet Venus moved about the sun as if drawn to the sun but not drawn to the earth. Thus his diagram reveals on what principle this might happen, and this is the Galilean principle that centres of vis are absolute in there influence on local regions of space, by imparting the velocity of the centre to every part of the local region. In this way the local region behaves as a sole or absolute quantity that may be itself drawn to a larger centre.

Newton adduced a quantitative vis system based on. Triumvirate of vis: absolute vis, accelerative vis and motive vis. The absolute vis is that quantity of vis that is the total or entire within an isolated system. The accelerative vis is how that total vis is quantitatively and regionally distributed in the local space as observed by how it affects the velocity over time of the parts of the total throughout the region of local influence. The motive vis is how those parts of the system are individually and proportionally being drawn toward the systems centre. This was each parts centre tench and is defined precisely as a parts weight by Newton. Thus he enables motives to be compared empirically by a spring balance or by a balance of moments.

These motives are dependent on their location within the regional accelerative vis distribution, as well as the quantity of the part and the velocity change over time of the part..btoday we naturally call the distribution of vis a field, but in fact the idea of a field is not natural at all. In great part it is a concept due to the empirical observations, diagrams and philosophy of Faraday. Newton here shows a conceptual quantity distribution which acts on bodies within its influence as an absolute system, that is very much akin to a field concept, but in fact it based on an unspecified distribution law. Later he would demonstrate the inverse square law, which is a familiar field distribution that defines a modern field essentially.

It is logically clear that if motive is to be the weight of a part of an absolute system, that is the quantitative measure of that parts tendency to the centre,that a measure of tha quantity of motion is needed. This measure makes explicit the velocity of the part that is to be changed over time. But if the part has its velocity explicit the part of space within the system was also explicit. This part of the system he defined as the quantity of matter,

The quantity of matter is therefore and necessarily a part of an absolute system, and not a universal constant at all.

The concept of a quantity of matter is relative to an absolute system. It is a regional part of that system capable of changing its velocity as a whole or sole object especially in centriole tench, or propensity to move toward the systems centre. To quantify this part Newton brings it down to a geometrical measure called a volume. . But a volume clearly dies not model the differences between weight of volumes as measured by balances. In fact this problem, as Newton knew was solved by Archimedes using the displacement of water as a way to describe quantitatively the inference between volumes of parts of the absolute system. This difference as a measure was called density. It is a ratio,and it is a ratio of compared motives.

Now I always thought that Archimedes used water as the standard substance, whose motive is used by volume to quantify every part of an absolute system.. If water as used then it is a substance found everywhere on earth and thus makes it a good local standard. If it can be found everywhere in the universe it makes it a useful universal substance to be used within each absolute system as a standard for this quantitative purpose.

However it suddenly becomes apparent that Newton based his concept of a standard substabpnce not on water but on air!air too can be found everywhere on earth, but there is clearly a naive hope that it might extend out into the system of the earth and the moon!. Newton thus considered the earth moon system to be measurable in terms of density ratios of Air.

Considering this, I must assume that Newton expected the earth and moon to have such large quantities of matter that the air between them would be a negligible part of the system in terms of quantity of motion. Substantially then the centre tench of the moon to the earth and the earth to the moon reside mainly within the relative weights of these bodies. The effect of any intervening air would be negligible. This is important because the resistive force of air as wind was well known. Thus objections of the moon and earth being blown off course by respective winds are made implausible! Nevertheless Newton expected over very long times the motion between the earth and moon would be retarded by this air leading to the moon eventually falling from the sky!

]]>

It is said that he used Newtons observation that heat( a fluid) flows from a high temperature to a low temperature, from hot to cold. However since Newton expressed heat as a vibration he did not concur with this notion!

The higher state of vibration corresponded to the higher temperature, thus a higher vibratory state passes into a lower vibratory state.

There are several observations at superconducting temperatures where cold is observed to flow into heat! This seems anomalous except when you realise that it is a relative statement if vibration passes into lower vibration one may equally say that lower vibration passes into higher vibration

However empirical observation reveals the following. Heat is associated with lower densities of a material. Thus a warm front is associated with low pressure circulation cells, cold temperatures are associated with higher densities, thus anticyclones spread out into warmer lower density air bringing a chill.

We say high density spirals out into lower density, but this is cold flowing into heat! In addition we say heat convicts or radiates into cold , but give no thought to cold converting or radiating into heat.

If we look at convection in a metal bar, the high temperature Is associated ith a less dense volume of material, expanding and highly radiative . But consider for a moment that the cold material is attempting to radiate into this less dense region , that it is converting from its stays of higher density spreading into a region of lower density. In this case the lower temperature and lower vibratory system is nevertheless more highly effective in pushing a lower vibratory state onto a higher one.

The situation is not the simplified hot flowing into cold energy flow or even high temperature flowing to lower temperature, it is a high temperature low density high vibrational radiating and expanding state which is being penetrated by a low temperature high density low vibration radially contracting low radiation state”

Thus warm air does not rise, rather cold air pushes the less dense air up.

In terms of the znewtonian absolute system this makes perfect sense, as the quantity of motion , and the motive measure of the cold air has a greater cntipetency than the less dense warm air.

]]>

The occasion of this research has been the reading of Galileos Dilogo , in part, the apprehension of the Galilean fractal principle contained therein and Newtons use of the same in his triumvirate of Vis, under the heading of the Centrioetency of force, that is the Centripetal Force.

I hope , by these means to reveal the backwards structural arrangement of Newtons definitions, and why the measure that is the quantity of motion is placed as a foundational or initial definition.

Search:

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

absolute (adj.)

late 14c., “unrestricted; complete, perfect;” also “not relative to something else” (mid-15c.), from Middle French absolut (14c., Old French asolu, Modern French absolu), from Latin absolutus, past participle of absolvere “to set free, make separate” (see absolve).Most of the current senses also were in the Latin word. Sense evolution was “detached, disengaged,” thus “perfect, pure.” Meaning “despotic” (1610s) is from notion of “absolute in position.” Absolute monarchy is recorded from 1735 (absolute king is recorded from 1610s); scientific absolute magnitude (1902), absolute value (1907) are from early 20c. In metaphysics, the absolute “that which is absolute” is from 1809.

http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/absolute

It may be seen that in this context and at the time Newton wrote that he meant to convey the idea of ” non relative” ” non dependant” and ” isolated” in regard to the observations and deductions Galileo had made of the Jovian system. Thus in this system the absolute vis was evident as a separate system from that of the earth moon system. In quantitative terms this had to be the whole or totality of that quantity of vis.

Through the telescope this sense of isolation is profound, and the sight of the moons of Jupiter and the realisation that they are ” independently ” rotating around Jupiter was the deepest possible shock to the system men and women of those days could experience!

It takes a mind that measures to see this system as an absolute quantity! In the sense that a triangle is a different absolute quantity o a hexagon, say. Only by seeing these as Arithmoi, pebbles or mosaic chips can the profound quantitative analogy be understood. For a picture may capture that which takes a thousand words to describe the extensive properties and propensities of, but that same picture cut into a mosaic gives a quantitative and relative encoding of each part in the Arithmos. Each Arithmos is as an absolute quantity, complete and entire to itself.

That such properties of vis, namely centripetal vis should be so evidently associated to this quantity or Arithmos is a revelation! However to use the quantitative apprehension with the vis some rule of relation must be observed. For example this absolute quantity of force might be divided uniformly though the isolated system. . However by this time, sufficient evidence and deduction had been gathered as to suggest that the rule of relationship was an inverse square law. So this quantity of vis was distributed so as to act differently at different distances from the centre. This notion was not absolute therefore as it depended on the absolute quantity of the system however it was measured by the accelerative effect this distribution of vis had throughout the system thus Newton called this measure the acclerative vis. It is a dependent subdividing of the isolated or indent quantity of vis in the system. Thus while encoding the same regional quantity, so that the total should be the same, the distribution of the summation should reflect the greater sum where the greater concentration of vis is and vice versa.

How might this be achieved quantitatively? This requires that there be another subdivision of the vis such that the greater acceleration is embodied in the greater part of the whole or if necessary the greater acceleration being in the smaller part, the force being small yet the time of application is longer. That being the requirement means that the accelerative vis must impinge a change in velocity of parts dependent on time! It is thus the measure of that velocity change over time. This is agin a definition of acceleration given by Galileo, but here the proportion of the system, ie it’s relative” bulk” or mass compared to he Abdolute, affects the quantity of vis in that part.

But then, should a part be moved centripetally as a whole then that part is a measure of motive vis in the following precise sense: if it is opposed by a spring or by the parts acting as moments to a balance! Thus a part or a summation of parts may now be given a motive as a multiple of some standard notive or weight, and balanced accordingly on a pair of scales.

Thus has Newton brought down from the starry heavens, by Alikening to a system of measures that quantify the absolute systems of planets by their motions over time and by their bulk in the heavens or yet within each absolute system.

I now turn to Abdolute time. This is not an observed property of the Jovian system, but rather an addiction by Newton, that if a system may be absolute, that is isolated and entire, that time might also be absolute. In fact it was necessary to use earth based times to discuss the changes in the Jovian system, yet it is evident that if Jupiter has moons then it has it’s own system for recording Tymes! That being the point explicitly made within the first chapter of genesis as regards the function of a moon!

Given then that each absolute system has its own absolute time, that makes time a relative concept! But that was unacceptable or that way lies confusion! Thus absolute that is independent time was the solution. Such a time may well exist with god, but it’s conception was more mathematically adduced than for any other reason. If such a time is not demanded how will 1 second be measured any where in the universe never mind on the planet earth.

Absolute time represents a simple knee jerk reaction to the difficulty of quantitatively measuring acceleration and velocity in these absolute systems. Later Einstein would point the way to how to relate all these relative measures together in a system based exactly on Galileos principle of uniform motion of reference frames.

Returning now to the motive, it is clearly a quantity that is proportional to the bulk or mass of a part and the velocity of a part under accelerative vis. It is exactly a quantity of motion. What we find is that Newton defines such a measure almost as the first of his definitions before defining vis or acceleration or velocity. These are assumed to be known from Galileo’s work.

The quantity of motion is thus his final definition of motive, placed first to emphasise it as a fundamental unit within a centripetally acting absolute vis system, with an accelerative bis rule.

This is. Newtons exposition of the Galilean principle in a form amenable to quantitative measures.

]]>

It is to be noted that in defining centripetal force the first presentations describe it as drawing a body away from its natural or innate rectilinear motion, that being the propensity of its innate force. However this is rather a stronger notion than the original Greek idea of a ” good” or “straight ” line allows. Such a good line if it be true to its nature in the motion may in fact be a curve! In any case the assumption that motion is naturally rectilinear is hardly empirical by any degree!

Supposing now that the innate motion merely attempts to continuously recede from the centre which impels it from its recession hardly spoils the plot, but in fact enhances it in the many and congenial examples he gives of a centripetal force in action, or behaving as he wishes it to be described.

We may also have missed the import of his second example, that such a force is as an example magnetic, and as a third example but of an unknown force, gravitational!. So in proposing this definition it is not to define gravity but all kinds of force that tend the motion of a body continually to ward a centre, and so doing by altering the bodies innate velocity Leo, as well as its general recessive course, we’re it to be viewed from the vantage of the pulling force centre!

There is then a ballistic discussion mediated on the introduction of the idea that the velocity of a body is altered by a centripetal force, in which the relative view is again switched as the explosive power of gunpowder now impels a body to some velocity which gives it increasing range , until at last a velocity should be reached by which the projectile completes one orbit! The argument being so clear and logical that it has been remarked that it alone was sufficient to convince his peers that he knew whereof hew rote. But it should be noted that with increasing peed the missile was said to pass out of orbit to continue into gods universe unhindered. . This vision was clearly advanced so that he might bring the moon into his discussion forthwith and deny ny argument that the moon was drawn out of its way by the same centripetal gravity that governed the ballistics of the projectile.

This having been advanced he leaves it to the mathematicians( that is the qualified astrologers) to determine this exact velocity , and the intensity of this centripetal force so that any body in orbit might just remain so , falling so as to miss the earth continually, but not to come crashing down onto the earth, nor yet to fly away.

Now some have read this and failed to see the complexity of what Newton set out to do. As a consequence they have not grasped the complex nature of the orbital problem in particular, the many forces as impulses or resistive forces or impelling or expelling forces that are herein described and employed to convey the conceptual framework he thn goes on to address. Therefore ome have rejected his later more careful description of circular and orbital motion in which centrifugal force is admitted to the description. It is empirically obvious to all that such a force is needed to account fully for observed behaviours, but some have sought to make velocity the source of this centrifugal force. The changes in in the tension on a string would properly imply both a centripetal and centrifugal force, which when removed by swinging a projectile in an elliptical arc results in the projectile crashing to the ground under no centripetal orce by the string! Thus the string not only must supply centripetal force but also centrifugal force to keep the projectile in that correct attitude to orbit.. The velocity itself if it was solely rectilinear would behave tangentially in breaking loose of the projectile, but instead it behaves as if it has another velocity imparted by a centrifugal force compounded with the supposed rectilineal one ( by those who would argue that rectilinear is a straight tangential velocity instantaneous to the orbital curve).

That being said we must now proceed past the moon to the Jovian system observed by Galileo to follow newtons establishment of his force triumvirate.

Centripetal force is of 3 kinds, and each kind is a measure/ Metron or measured quantity the absolute vis measure is a quantitative appreciation of a central agency. His example is the many kinds of lodestones nd their corresponding intensity. Thus should we specify a particular lodestone, or even Jupiter, that is a particular absolute vid.. Thus absolute means an isolated or specific potency under investigation, and the sole cause of all that is considered in following discussions.. It is defined as acting from the centre.

Later Newton adds that this absolute vis is the cause or central causative agentin the system. I have taken that to mean in the universal system god, but in a local system, clearly it is a specified quantitative object.it has to be quantitative because he is establishing a quantitative fractal system as designed by Galileo.

The accelerative vis is next defined. There are more examples of how the accelerative vis varies around the specified object or centre.. Thus if we isolate a quantity from an extensive magnitude, that is only the beginning. We must now examine that quantity carefully snd specify som sub quantity measure!in other words, taking the object as a whole we must now divide it into multiple parts..in this case taking the intensity of the absolute vis we must now render it into its behavioural parts. In this case , as he later shows, he desires to establish an inverse square proportionality as the parts. This is his taccrlerative vis proportion, which he will later empirically and geometrically and astrologically establish.

He quotes one observation of Galileo directly, that accelerative vis imparts the same velocity regardless of mass at the sae height or distance from the accelerative bis centre.. But the absolute force for each identified system will be different, so the subsystem accelerative force will have a different value but the same law of calculating the measures..

Now I took the accelerative vis to be an instance of a universal vis, an absolute vis, but clearly it is a scale of behavioural action centred on the centre of the absolute vis.. Thus in the universal view accelerative vis describes how the various parts of the universe should behave relative to the centre. Immediately it becomes apparent that this system cannot have a universal application! No one knows where the centre of the universe might be!thus despite its general applicability it is not a universal system but a local empirical one.

In that regard, yhe recent expositions on dark matter seem premature. If we choose a galaxy as an object we can use this system to estimate whether an inverse square law pplirs to the galactic syste, the galaxy is assumed as the absolute vis nd an accelerative vis is designed for it from the galactic centre. When this is done, it apparently does not work! So dark matter was invented o explain this” anomaly”. This ord Anomally means infringement of alas, but it is us who imposed this law on the galaxy in the first place, clearly our law is not a correct description for galactic systems! We do not need to invent dark matter, we just need to get the correct law, which may beone of the other laws Newton tried throughout his astrological principles.

Finally he describes the motive vis measure or Metron. This basically allows the observer to sum up the behaviour of masses or parts of a system which are being impelled by the accelerative vis to move toward or about the centre. In very particular, at the same level one mass may be blanced on a weighing device against not her. Thus the motive vis measures parts against parts under the influence of the same accelerative vis and uses the balance or ahookes spring to establish proportionalmeasures like mass, weight etc.

Again Newton relates this to the astrological Jovian system, in which the moons might now be weighed against each other within the one accelerative force of the absolute Jovian system

There is no as yet direct statement that the accelerative force if the centre itself is in motion imparts this additional motion to the parts it. Accelerates, but this will be advanced later.

]]>