Jacques Trémolet de Villers a reconnu que le - bien entendu vrai - mariage est pour tous?

Sa Tribune en dernière page de PRÉSENT s'appelle Nouvelles de la France qui vient. Et aujourd'hui je viens de regarder le numéro d'hier. Donc du 5-VI-2013.

Nous récitions parfois comme des perroquets, qu'il fallait bâtir "la civilisation de l'amour", mais cette civilisation, pour se construire, veut un socle, une base immuable, universelle, accessible à tous, une et pourtant multiple. Cette merveille, incroyable, cette pierre philosophale qui change la boue en or, c'est le mariage.

Les emphases en gras sont de moi, celles en italiques sont dans le texte.

Notons pour ceux qui ne se connaissent rien ès choses catholiques qu'il s'agit du vrai mariage. Donc entre un homme et une femme, fermée contre le divorce et le remariage pendant la vie du conjoint autant que contre bigamie simultanée ou adultère vulgaire, ouvert aux enfants. C'est celui-là qui est accessible à tous s'il est la base et le socle immuable de la civilisation de l'amour.

Notons aussi qu'un maire d'une ville qui méritait mieux vient de rendre le mariage moins accessible à deux hommes, puisque, comptés devant le système français comme mariés l'un à l'autre, il leur faudra un divorce (qui n'en est pas puisque le mariage n'en est pas, mais qui peut néanmoins coûter comme un vrai divorce en termes de dépenses juridiques, de temps, de souffrances des cœurs) avant de se pouvoir réellement marier.

Est-ce que je note une belle première dans le tournant du discours de la droite, ou est-ce que je me dirais "une hirondelle ne fait pas un été"?

Si on avait dit ça aux temps que la gauche disait que les "personnes homosexuels ne doivent pas rester exclus du mariage" - ce qu'elles n'étaient pas! - on aurait peut-être pu sauver l'honneur de l'Assemblée Nationale de la honte du jour de St Georges dernier. Mais à l'époque j'étais seul à le dire, on parlait de moi comme un homosexuel rêveur irréaliste qui rêvait de faire un mariage avec une femme malgré mon incapacité supposée (et comme l'ont montré d'autres, eux réellement atteints certaines périodes de leur vie d'homosexualité: ce n'est même pas infaisable) ou encore plus rêveur en rêvant de faire un pseudo-mariage avec la bénédiction de l'église catholique. On avait lu mes messages-blog là-dessus au lieu de spéculer sur moi, on aurait peut-être averti ce grand malheur pour le pays. Où j'ai l'honneur de résider en exile volontaire du mien.

Autre chose:

Le rapport de l'IGS confirmera qu'un policier en civil a bien poursuivi les jeunes à deux reprises et qu'il a donné l'alerte lorsqu'ils sont entrés dans le transformateur. Mais dans la salle de commandement, personne n'a entendu.

Le lendemain, aujourd'hui, c'est Caroline Parmentier qui écrit ceci.

S'il n'y avait personne dans la salle de commandement, ou s'ils étaient tous très occupés par d'autres choses, alors c'est un accident. Si quelqu'un a pu entendre et faire entendre mais n'a pas voulu une coupure d'électricité pour sauver ce qu'il considérait comme de la racaille, alors c'est lui qui est coupable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
St Norbert de Xanten
6-VI-2013

Un peu de l'or et un peu de Dor

Besancenot est parfois con quand il est d'accord avec Mélenchon ou Hollande. Mais il a ses moments lucides. Il félicite les ouvriers de l'usine Zanon, dans le Sud de l'Argentine, d'avoir après une occupation pu sauver leur usine. J'espère - le tract de NPA laisse la question à côté - qu'ils ont entretemps (l'occupation était en 2001) pu payer les expropriétaires expropriés d'une usine dont ils se voulaient de toute manière exproprier. Mais non sans récompense.

Bon, on peut donc vivre sans patron et gagner sa vie. Les patrons le font assez souvent encore - à moins de compter les banques qui leurs donnent crédits comme quasi-patrons tant que les patrons sont endettés. Les ouvriers de Zanon le font aussi, depuis 2001.

Plût à Dieu que ces luttes là n'eussent pas été le début d'un régime qui en 2004 vient de dénaturer le mariage. Je n'aime pas qu'on dénature les concepts, comme on peut lire dans le message avant, du 23 avril, jour où la France vient de suivre le mauvaise exemple d'Argentine. Le bon exemple (comme Zanon), on n'est pas si prêt à suivre.

Si je n'aime pas qu'on dénature les concepts, il ne s'agit pas juste du mariage. Je viens d'avoir un débat avec quelqu'un qui voulait que "nombres naturels, zéro, nombres négatifs, nombres réels, nombres complexes" ne fassent juste des sous-ensembles d'un concept plus vaste de "nombre". La bonne définition était biensûr celle de ce qu'on appelle de nos jours "nombres naturels". Sans doute choisis parce que les "autres nombres" ne sont qu'artificiellement comptés comme nombres, ou parfois n'existent même pas sauf comme vue d'esprit (c'est le cas avec zéro et avec i, par exemple).

La déontologie médicale vient aussi d'avoir ses bouleversements sans nécessité.

La Loi Leonetti, ça donne comme je viens de lire chez Jeanne Smits en Présent, encore un meurtre collégialement décidé et en train de se faire (ou déjà accompli?) par des docteurs qui suivent les nouvelles instructions. Comme cette barraque à Dachau ou les prisonniers se mouraient par manque d'hygiène dans la typhoïde et les gaz produits par entrailles typhoïdes, car les gardiens avaient l'ordre de ne pas leur apporter de l'eau et de savon, ni ils n'enlevaient les cadavres. Trouvée en cet état par Secours Catholique en 1945. Ceci n'est pas une conclusion ou rumeur possiblement fausse entre les prisonniers sur la nature des chambres de gaz, mais un crime attesté par des témoins qui n'étaient pas en état de traumatisme avant. Un crime purement négatif, pourtant un crime. L'hôpital où se meurt (s'il n'est pas déjà mort) "Hervé" (comme le nomme Jeanne Smits) en fait un autre.

Je me demande si ça retombe sur l'acceptation moderne du Serment Hippocratique. Ma mère ne l'a pas juré, elle avait ses doutes de conscience sur la licéité pour un chrétien (pour un homme de tout, mais un payen Grec aurait eu des excuses, peut-être) de jurer "par Apollon et Æsculape". Quel est l'Apollon par lequel ils jurent? Dans la Renaissance, Apollon et Æsculape étaient pour les médecins qui prêtaient ce serment deux médecins, humains, qui ont fondé l'école qui plus tard aura Hippocrate et St Luc et les saints Côme et Damien (qui ont été trahis par leurs collègues). Apollon dans le serment d'Hippocrate n'avait donc rien à voir avec Apollon le Delphique, le démon qui possède les Pythies, sauf le nom.

Si on croit que les Pythies ont été possédés par un ou plusieurs vrais démons, qui s'est ou qui se sont présenté aux pauvres payens comme "Apollon" (mais parfois aussi, comme en Iliade chant premier, plus honnêtement, Apollyon), et si on croit qu'il y a eu un vrai Æsculape qui identifiait son père comme Apollon, alors on peut avoir plusieurs hypothèses sur ce dernier. Soit Æsculape ne connaissait pas son père, soit il était comme Merlin l'Enchantateur issu d'une ravi par un démon, et dans les deux cas il a pu considérer qu'Apollon la divinité était son père, soit encore, son père avait, comme un ami de St Paul, simplement été appelé Apollon, mais il était, comme le considérèrent les médecins de la Renaissance, ensuite adoré comme identique avec Apollon de Delphes par les payens. Identification qui n'oblige en rien les médecins chrétiens.

Depuis un peu plus récemment que la Renaissance le monde érudit dans son vaste ensemble ne favorise plus de croire que les Pythies ont été possédés par un ou plusieurs vrais démons, ni de croire qu'il y ait eu un vrai Æsculape qui identifiait son père comme Apollon. D'où un certain glissement dans l'acceptation du serment d'Hippocrate, depuis la Renaissance. Un médecin de nos jours peut considérer Æsculape avec son père Apollon comme des fables, issues non pas de l'embrouillement des concepts parmi les payens, mais de la crédulité et du fanatisme. On se demande avec quel esprit il va alors prêter le serment d'Hippocrate.

Il pourrait théoriquement aussi considérer comme plus probable qu'Æsculape avec son père Apollon sont des fables, mais quand même par quelque jeu dangéreux avoir l'intention de prêter serment par Apollon, "dieu" de la peste dans l'Iliade, "dieu" des médiums possédés dans l'Ænéide et dans pas mal de tragédies, et "dieu" destructeur pour Cassandre, pour Acrise et Œdipe, pour Agamemnon et pour Oreste, pour Crœsus et tant d'autres malheureux, y compris les Achaïens non seulement par la peste mais aussi par la colère d'Achille, et ce jeu là est spirituellement une ouverture au diable.

Si on regarde des choses que des médecins ont fait dans les cent ans passés, on croit possible ou même probable que des médecins aient prêté le serment d'Hippocrate dans ce sens là. Une exception honorable à ce soupçon est biensûr Xavier Dor. Je crois que je venais de dire que Mélenchon est con, il l'est par exemple quand il prend le temps que Xavier Dor a fait en taûle comme une réfutation du fait éclatant que celui-ci est un rayon de lumière dans un ténèbre ou crépuscule assez fréquent dans la profession de mes deux parents. Quand ma mère étudiait encore, et quand elle faisait son "practicum" dans divers hôpitaux, elle n'aurait jamais consenti une quelleconque euthanasie. Et elle voyait quand même des vieux et des vieilles en très divers états.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In Pompidolianâ Bibliothecâ
quelque anniversaire de Kierkegaard
Dimanche, Sixième de Pâques
5-V-2013

On Satyric Songs

This one is for Owen

We were discussing the Song "Father's got the sack from the waterworks", which was cited by one Gilbert Keith Chesterton. Here is Chesterton's rendering, which I sounded with the melody which best seemed me to fit it, but I never actually heard it:

"Father's got the sack from the water-works
For smoking of his old cherry-briar;
Father's got the sack from the water-works
'Cos he might set the water-works on fire."

It is given in the essay or chapter Death of the Household Gods in the collection or monography Eugenics and Other Evils. One of my major decisive steps away from a near Satanic, though I did not think so at the time, sympathy for Nazism, which for the bettter soon passed away. But the men who helped me away from it have both been maligned. Gilbert Keith has been confounded with his cousin A. K. Chesterton who sympathised with Mosley. My school friend was maligned or is even now maligned along with me as having been a Sodomite Friendship, which we were not. Here is the link to that essay:

Gilbert Keith Chesterton » Eugenics and Other Evils » The End of the Household Gods
http://www.online-literature.com/chesterton/eugenics-and-other-evils/16/

Now, that is satyre, because it shows the absurdity of certain employers or - in one rendering foremen - with hygienic preoccupations and with thinking themselves superiors to the workers in respects where they are strictly equal just because there is one where they are not, to wit proprietorship and decision making powers about the company. If the municipal or private water tower decides when the father in question comes to work, that is a reasonable kind of superiority, since they work together and take turns about making work what has to work around the clock. The superiority is not so much a natural as a conventional one. The one who decides when people get to work is not better at it than everybody else, but one has to do it, the one, whichever he is, who does it is superior to the chaos of everyone deciding for themselves when to get to the waterwork, as long as they are employed at it. But when it comes to decide on a thing like smoking, the worker and the emloyer (or foreman) are strictly equal fellow men, images of God, sons of Adam, souls for whom God took manhood in Nazareth and died on the Cross of Calvary. The normal thing is that a worker decides if he smokes and an employer if he smokes. The worker cannot tell his employer "I want you to smoke" or "not to smoke" so the employer should not tell his worker whether to smoke or not.

Obvious exceptions to that would be accomodating one worker who has asthma (non-smoking) or working with food (non-smoking) or when patients with asthma are to be met (non-smoking in hospitals), and equally an exception would be where one has to smoke in order to test a pipe or tobacco blend (for smoking). Apart from that, any employer who tells his employees not to smoke is playing God with them. And above song is a very fair satyre about their superfluous worries which they use for excusing that intolerable habit.

Sometimes of course foremen are worse than employers. When googling for the title line, I found this variety:

"Father got the sack from the waterworks

For smoking his little cherry briar

The foreman, Joe

Told him he must go

'Cos he might set the waterworks on fire".

[source]

That variety I would sing to a somewhat different melody, because it is a different rhythm. A bit more like some inflections in older US Folk Music (pre-country-western). Getting the complete text seems difficult. There is however some hope of seeing it as a film, if you can get hold of it:

IMDb > Father's Got the Sack from the Waterworks (1916)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2351219/

For some reason, the Sheetmusic Warehouse where I should have been able to order the music sheets with lyrics, has gotten this song out of stock:

The Sheetmusic Warehouse : Father's Got the Sack From the Water Works by W&M: C.Collins, T.Sullivan Copyright from 1915 (=expired)
http://www.sheetmusicwarehouse.co.uk/details.php?ref=18062

Sorry, this item is no longer available, please click here to go back to the home page

That remark, from "UK's leading supplier of out of print sheet music" is in itself material for satyric lyrics. I wonder if there is any page on the internet where one can get all stanzas. If someone thought it too heavily attacking on employers and foremen, and asked The Sheetmusic Warehouse (whose business idea is to keep available what the original supplier does not keep available) no longer to keep it available, that might explain the thing.

Otherwise we might perhaps look for a reprint, since the copyright is expired (it was I who added that remark by the way)?

It reminds me slightly of when Bill Gates, a leading supplier of freedom of speech on the web, in 2009, february, closed down each and every MSN Group which had ever been created as a forum under his auguries, including my two. Antimodernism and TheRoadGoesEverOnAndOn. The smaller one dealt with Tolkien and my pilgrimage to Santiago and I tried to transfer it to the new forums he created: Multiply. However, even a realtively small group (few messages and threads that is) could not transfer all threads and messages correctly to Multiply. What were my hopes for the larger one?

I started copying as much of it as I could onto newmade blogs for that purpose. I saved much, but I think more than half of my work went down the sink, perhaps because Bill Gates does not believe in freedom of communication as much as he pretends to. Also a material for satyric songs, if you like.

I wrote one myself, in French, about quite another matter: the pseudo-responsibility by which abortion and contraceptive practises are often excused or even extolled. Here:

un jacobite : Mon fils encore non conçu
http://jacobita.blogspot.fr/2005/06/mon-fils-encore-non-conu.html

I did not think this was obscure poetry at all. I thought the sarcasm was pretty obvious in lines like:

Mon fils pourra tuer un homme:

Je devrais le guillotiner!

Mon fils pourra violer une femme:

Je devrais le fair' avorter!

I mean, death penalty is in the ordinary course of things applied for things a culprit has already done, not for something he possibly could do in the future. And that links to the absurdity of abortion or contraception "for social responsibility" and in "preventive crime repression". It links to the absurdity of any mother from any class, even those sometimes called "criminal classes", aborting to prevent herself from being the mother of a criminal. Or listening to a doctor who asks her to do that. Especially as it is pretty doubtful whether a rapist should be executed or have more lenient punishment. And especially as drinking too much rhum (my third exemple in following lines) is not a capital offense in any legislation, not even Saudi Arabia (barbarious as are their customs of punishing drunkards or those even tasting alcohol).

As with responsibility for society, avoiding to give birth to criminals or bums, so with responsibility to the unborn. Guillotining someone will of course cure a sore throat, but you just do not do that for purely curative purposes. And the near devout tone in the third stanza about the pretty disgusting methods there are to avoid procreation (everyone who is not satyrising them talks about them anyway), should be pretty obvious as sarcasm. AND, if that were not enough, I make a turnabout in the fourth stanza saying I did not really mean it and stating what I really mean:

Mais si je crois la Providence

Je vais pas le guillotiner!

On doit pas prévenir tout cas en avance:

Je vais pas alors l’avorter!

A little later, some people were looking worried when I talked about my writings on the internet and this song. Maybe the sarcasm was not obvious enough to them. So, I wrote a comment in which I link to it condemning abortion:

En français sur Antimodernism : C KOI, L'IVG?
http://avantlafermeturedantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2008/10/c-koi-livg.html

I also wrote a reply on the sometimes environmental worries that I satyrise in the second stanza as motives for population control.

En français sur Antimodernism : Jamais
http://avantlafermeturedantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2008/10/jamais.html

Never has one heard of a population that grew until its resources no longer fed it and then it died off from hunger. Never ever. As for resources in certain non-vital resources, like electricity or gazoline, I stated one could live without that before and can live without that again:

En français sur Antimodernism : Après le pétrol et l'uranium - quoi?
http://avantlafermeturedantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2008/10/aprs-le-ptrol-et-luranium-quoi.html

En français sur Antimodernism : On peut vivre ...
http://avantlafermeturedantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2008/10/on-peut-vivre.html

On peut vivre sans se faire dépendre des grosses companies privées, communales, départementales ou étatiques - à qui de l’empêcher?

Well, it seems the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (Greek Orthodox version, there being a Roman Catholic and an Anglican as well) is seeing the wisdom of this, since the Israeli held waterworks of Jerusalem for very long allowed them to not pay the bills, since they were a Church and now is demanding the accumulated debt for years and years in the past referring to a law forbidding the kind of deal that was made inofficially. You might, if you like write a satyric song about that kind of duplicity.

And yes, I admitted I had a part of personal nostalgia in returning to simpler technologies of heating and illumination of the human home:

En français sur Antimodernism : Pourquoi Antimodernisme - contre l'électricité aussi?
http://avantlafermeturedantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2008/10/pourquoi-antimodernisme-contre.html

But I have still not gotten any overt guffaws about the satyre in the song "Mon fils encore non conçu". So, I tried to make a comment on September 11^th on FB:

HGL's F.B. writings : Mes Trois Derniers Statuts : Le 11 Septembre
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2012/09/mes-trois-derniers-statuts.html

I can see about three possible reasons why the French are not laughing their arses off at my satyre on abortion and contraception:

1) They have no sense of satyre. They never buy Le Canard Enchaîné or Fluide Glacial or Charlie Hebdo. They never admire the caricatures of CHARD. The satyric bent of French humour is a myth.
2) Someone knowing the satyric song is by me and having a heavy prejudice against me might think I am uncapable of satyre, of enjoying or of producing it. Even if he has the good taste to laugh at a caricature by CHARD, he does not dare do so with anything ever written by me.
3) They have a sense of satyre. They are not quite uncapable of imagining me as a satyrist. They might even imagine I am satyric where I really am not, or not intentionally. BUT : they are so accustomed to responsibility and population control as ideologies that they cannot imagine anyone satyrising it, and if I appear to do so they think it must be a mistake. Why would anyone as intelligent and friendly as me satyrise something as holy and good as killing babies for their own best interest? Who would not rush to cutting off throats to prevent them gettintg sore in the future once you think of it? If one does not like that perspective, is it not best to avoid mentioning that consequence of modern ideologies?

Now, either of these perspectives is a deterrent for me to write another satyric song, for the moment. But if you feel more cheerful and more optimistic about the intelligence of the audience, go ahead, I have given you a few materials!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard, Paris
St Geoffrey of Amiens
8-XI-2012

"'The high tide,' King Alfred said...

series:
	Sir George Darwin corrected Galileo on Tides F = GMm / R2 The Plot Thickens ... "'The high tide,' King Alfred said... ... 'The High Tide and the Turn.' " Correction to Previous For Math Freaks: I take it the gravitational constant is below zero ... Some Experimental Challenges

Remember the previous essays, where the tidal forces are basically the gravitational pull, that is?

Here I get - when I turn to reading up on tides - quite another formula for gravitational tidal forces. My source here is a book, collection being Bibliothèque Scientifique, author being J. Rouch, his qualities being Honorary Director of Musée Océanographique and Member of L'Académie de la Marine. The title is Les Marées, and the publisher is Payot, in Paris. I turn to pages 49 and 50. French in left and my English translation in right column of below table:

Comme la Lune et le Soleil ont très sensiblement le même diamètre apparent, ils pouvaient penser que les deux astres étaient de même grosseur.	As the Moon and the Sun very visibly have the same apparent diameter, they could think that the heavenly bodies were of same size.
Mais lorsque les astronomes établirent que le Soleil était en réalité 26 millions de fois plus gros que la Lune,	But when astronomers established that the Sun is really 26 million times as huge as the Moon,
cette prééminence de la Lune a pu paraître surprenante.	this preeminence of the Moon could have appeared astonishing.
Comme nous le verrons, les forces génératrices de la marée sont directement proportionnelles à la masse de l'astre qui les provoque	As we shall see, the generating forces for tides are directly proportional to the mass of the heavenly body provoking them
et inversement proportionnelles au cube de sa distance.	and inversely proportional to the cube of its distance.

Wait a minute!

Are the forces provoking tides gravitation or something else? Supposedly gravitation right!

And we agree between this formula and Newton's above that the gravitational forces are directly proportional to the masses - except that here J. Rouch is leaving out compounding them by the mass of earth, presumably including that in some gravitational constant.

But the inverse proportionality, is it with the square or the cube of the distance?

Certes, si le Soleil et la Lune étaient tous deux à la même distance de la Terre,	Certainly, if Sun and Moon were at the same distance from Earth,
la marée produite par le Soleil serait bien 26 millions de fois plus forte que celle produite par la Lune.	then the tide produced by the Sun would be 26 million times stronger than that produced by the Moon.
Mais la Lune est 389 fois plus près de la Terre que le Soleil ...	But the Moon is 389 times closer to Earth than the Sun ...

OK, I calculated a mean distance from taking mean distance of Aphelium and Perihelium of Earth and taking the mean of Apogee and ... for Moon and got a factor of 497.⁸. Here the factor is only 389 times. Did I count wrong? Did science change? Or are we talking of mean distance of syzygies being a different thing than I calculated, does he start from largest distance of Moon? I do not know.

Note also that J. Rouch is giving the facts in order of explanation. As order of discovery goes (same relation as detective novel to criminal's autobiography, for instance) it would be atrocious to set hugeness or mass of Sun (did he even distinguish volume from mass=volume times density?) before the distance, since it is calculated by the distance, just as those of the Moon are.

... et le cube (!) de 389 est égal, en chiffres ronds, à 59 millions.	...and the cube (!) of 389 is equal, in round numbers, to 59 millions.
La Lune, par suite de sa proximité de la Terre,	The Moon, by reason of its closeness to Earth,
a donc un avantage qui peut être grossièrement évalué au rapport 59/26, soit environ 2,25.	has then an advantage which grossly can be evaluated to the ratio 59/26, or 2.25 to round it off.
Ce rapport est appelé	This ratio is called
rapport des actions moyennes de la Lune et du Soleil.	ratio of mean actions of Moon and Sun.

149 597 870 km = half long axis of the Sun (of earth according to heliocentrics)

384 399 km = half long axis of the Moon

389.^{1734109610067} ratio of distances

151,455.^9437990246 square of the ratio

58,942,626.^25858494 cube of the ratio

If you wonder why decimals are fewer and fewer, it is because the calculator on the computer has a given space to all of the numerals.

"The Sun has a mass of 1.9891×10³⁰ kg
"The Earth has a mass of 5.9736 x 10²⁴ kg

"So the Sun is about 332,900 heavier than the Earth ..." source

"Finally, let’s take a look at mass. The mass of the Moon is 7.347 x 10²² kg. But the Earth is much more massive. The mass of the Earth is 5.97x 10²⁴ kg. This means that the mass of the Moon is only 1.2% of the mass of the Earth. You would need 81 objects with the mass of the Moon to match the mass of the Earth."

Read more: source

Which also gives us the absolute (as believed) and therefore relative masses of Sun and Moon.

Now, it seems tides are not directly caused by gravitation only but indirectly only - by some formula derived from the F=GMm/R² but not identical to it. So, cube of distance is correct for solar and lunar tidal influences, it would seem. And it is 58.⁹ million times.

Well, here we get to a sticky part: how do you derive that? Page 59:

Pour évaluer la grandeur des forces qui représentent l'action d'un astre M sur une particule P placée sur la surface de la Terre,	To evaluate the greatness of forces that a heavenly body M act on a particle P on the surface of Earth
on applique à la particule	you apply to the particle
en plus de l'accélération que lui imprime l'astre M	above the acceleration which heavenly body M exercises on it
une accélération égale et de signe contraire à celle que l'astre M imprime à la Terre elle-même.	An acceleration equal and of opposite sign to what the heavenly body M impresses on Earth itself.

Wow!

If particle P is between hb M and Earth ... why?

If particle P has Earth between itself and hb M ... again why?

Because, "greatness" here obviously mean "greatness and direction", as usually with Newtonic vectors.

Somehow I missed something. I actually missed it when I was a Heliocentric in grades nine and ten discussiing this with a retired Physics teacher who sometimes replaced the younger science teacher.

I was already then suspicious of the case why spring tides at newmoons occur on BOTH sides of the earth according to the diagrams of spring tides and neap tides I had been looking at.

When given explanation that gravity displaces water between Earth and Moon+Sun more than Earth's solids but Earth's total solids more than waters behind it, I though "ok - but what about the neap tide case?" At the halfmoon crescant or the halfmoon decrescant?

Let us see if I can make sense of the following explanation as I slowly translate it from French to English:

Considerons le cas très simple des points C et D de la Terre,	Let's consider the very simple case of points C and D on Earth,
sur la ligne qui joint le centre de l'astre perturbateur	on the line which joins the centre of the perturbing heavenly body
(la Lune par exemple)	(the Moon for instance)
au centre de la Terre.	to the centre of the Earth.

The referral is now to figure 9, on which I see A and B as points on the Poles and C and D as opposite points of the equator. C has the heavenly body in zenith, D in nadir.

Leaving the text aside, since I do not have the book now, I cite content from memory.

Let r be the distance from centre of Earth to centre of Moon. Let M be the mass of the Moon. Let a be distance between centre and surface of Earth. This mass imposes on any particle in place C between itself and centre of Earth a disruption equalling the gravitational pull on point C minus the gravitational pull on Earth (centre of mass), and on any point D beyond the centre of Earth a disruption equalling gravitational pull on Earth (at centre of mass) minus the gravitational pull on point D.

How so? And how come the author instead of gravitational pull used the words "accélération"?

First question: since centre of Earth is further from Moon than point C and closer to Moon than point D, the same centre and all solids directly attached to it (or even semisolidly more attached to it than waters, if we count the theory of magmas floating inside earth) is more affected by gravitation than detachables or floatables on point D but less affacted than floatables on point C or detachables there either. Using the Newtonian formula F=GMm/r² we get first to acknowledge that:

F(point D) < F < F(point C)

Then we replace with other side of formula, making a the addition or subtraction for radius:

GMm/(r+a)² < GMm/r² < GMm/(r-a)²

Since G - gravitational constant and m - mass of Earth - are equal in all, we can bracked them out:

Gm { M/(r+a)² < M/r² < M/(r-a)² }

Or:

M/(r+a)² < M/r² < M/(r-a)²

Which implies two possible subtractions:

M/r² - M/(r+a)² = disruption for point D.

M/(r-a)² - M/r² = disruption for point C.

Now, why does the author use the word "acceleration" rather than "gravitational pull"? In Newtonian physics ... ouch!

I just forgot about the counterforces! It is as great as (Gm)(M/r²) so maybe, just maybe the equations will be equal anyway.

But the question for a philosopher is not just if the mathematics fit, but also if the interpretation on which one bases the mathematics fits the reality. So, I will not just go on with the mathematics, I will try to analyse the meaning of it. The meaning of what I just said, as well as the meaning of the other thing that J. Rouch said. If I can, that is.

What I mean is simply taking accelerations produced by Moon without taking counterforces into account and making subtractions to account for differences.

What he means is that there is at C a counterforce equal to the pull of the Moon ... somewhere? ... which counterforce is equal to Moon's pull on centre of mass of Earth. Why?

Does this difference of my intuitive following of his concepts and the way he expresses them mean I misunderstand his so to speak physical and ontological physics? Or is he merely saying it a different way in order to get an opposite sign on other side in order to get forces of opposite directions because he is calculating vectors rather than just sizes of forces? Is it just a difference of mathematical expression of physics in formulas?

Why is this an important question for the philosopher?

I am not writing this essay to get a physicist carreer instead of a writer's and composer's carreer. I am writing it to understand if possible and if possible make my readers understand whether the physics involved - the ontological part, what you can describe in words that can be intuitively understood - make sense, and if they make sense as well from a Geocentric perspective.

OK. What does Newton say when he claims that every action of a force provokes an equal and opposite counterforce?

I tried to figure it out, here is what I came up with: if Moon pulls Earth, and if Earth does not move towards Moon, this means Earth exercises a counterforce to the Moon, equal in size (M/r²) to that exercised by Moon and opposite in direction. Does this mean Earth is all the time vibrating back and forth? And where would such a force come from? Is Newton not attributing to matter a power of obstinacy which of itself it has not? Is this even a good time to ask the question? And is this the kind of question that physicists deal with when asked by common people, or do they leave such questions out even then?

Whichever formula we chose, and whether they are equivalent or not (I have not yet done the maths, will do) I would like to know:
1°) Is it a counterforce manifested in small tugging back and forth as vibration or is it a difference of displacement in acceleration as seen in absolute space;
2°) can both explanations be used for a Geocentric cosmography (as in serious cosmography, not just mathematical model) and for a Heliocentric / Acentric one;
3°) and is the maths involved the same in both explanations?

Getting back to writing this essay after a few tries at recuperating the algebraic steps that J. Rouch goes through to derive the inverse cube rule for tidal forces from the inverse square rule for gravitational pull in total. Remember, the difference between on the one hand the gravitational pull on solid earth masses, between sea and sea on opposite sides of Earth, which are everywhere equal to a gravitational pull where the masses of Earth and Moon are divided by the square of distance from centre of Moon to centre of Earth, because solids are connected to centre and, on the other hand, the gravitational pull on loose things like water on one or other side, where the masses of Earth and Moon are divided by the square of distance between centre of Moon and that one side of the Earth, that difference rather than the gravitational pull as such, is the tidal force. And similar as to Moon and its tidal forces, so also Sun and its tidal forces.

So, let us take either M/r² - M/(r+a)² or M/(r-a)² - M/r². I have been stuck with the first of these some time till today continuing, and here is what I came up with.

First of all, we need to get a common denominator. For 1/3 - 1/4, we need to get a denominator which can be translated to .../3 as well as to .../4 and we get it by multiplying these, which have no factor in common: .../12. But such a multiplication must be made on the enumerator side as well. To translate 1/3 into .../12 we multiply both enumerator and denominator by 4, like this: 4/12. And to translate 1/4 into .../12 we multiply by 3, like this: 3/12. So 1/3 - 1/4 = 4/12 - 3/12 = 1/12. Now, apply this to the formula M/r² - M/(r+a)²!

I get M((r+a)² - r²)/r²(r+a)².

Now for any (a+b)² - a² we remember the conjugate rule, which states that a² - b² = (a+b)(a-b). Obviously this is no way near giving the same geometry of the one side and the other side of the equation, but it is giving the same sum in arithmetic by diverging paths. When we apply algebra to natural phenomena one or other way of describing the mathematics may be a good way to describe the things, but it might be the other way that makes calculation simpler.

In the conjugate rule, insert (r+a)² for a² and r² for b². When we simplify the two sides we get a very funny-looking and even seemingly paradoxical formula:

(r+a)² - r²

=(r+a+r)(r+a-r)

= 2ra + a².

I doubted the result very much, as I found it paradoxical that r gets squared on one side but not other, but I made a table of rs and as with whole number values. For one on either variable, both formulas give three. For 2 and 1 they give 5. For two and two they give 12. Try 3 and 1, 3 and 2, 3 and 3, 4 and 1, 4 and 2, 4 and 3 and 4 and 4 yourself. Whatever values you put into the formulas, wherever r is equal to or greater than a, it remains true that:

(r+a)² - r² = = 2ra + a²

So, I can now simplify

M((r+a)² - r²)/r²(r+a)²

into

M(2ra + a²)/r²(r+a)².

But I still cannot get to the inverse cube rule we are looking for.

Now, since I am not seriously doubting that J. Rouch got the algebra right insofar as algebra is ever right (i e in equivalent numbers or sizes or other values), I will simply give what J. Rouch offered as an explanation and hope people better in algebra than I can make some sense of it:

M/(r-a)² - M/r²

= M/r²[1/(1 - a/r)² - 1]

=2Ma/r³ (with a/r being very small)

And remember how we excluded mass of earth and gravitational constant from the calculation, here he brings them back again in one quantity he calls f.

On either side of Earth, on equator close to and far from Moon, we have now a perturbing force, a difference of gravitational pull, equal to:

(2Ma/r³)f

But to get it on other side, instead of starting from

M/(r-a)² - M/r²

we start from

M/r² - M/(r+a)²

which means we get the perturbing force in opposite direction, it would seem!

Now, what does this mean physically? I mean in descriptions with verbs like pull and push and so, rather than in physicists' algebra?

One could say: the Moon makes the water on Moon side rush up from the Earth a little faster than it makes the Earth rush up from the waters on the side opposite the Moon. A Heliocentric would add: for as long as Earth is in that rotational position, until it is another angle of Earth and water that is aligned straight line with Moon. A Geocentric believing this explanation (such as Sungenis unless he takes my other interpretation of the formula) would say until Moon rotates around Earth and makes this happen to another angle of Earth and water aligned with itself. Meanwhile, in either explanation, the parts where this happened an hour earlier or so are dealing with a similar formula but a smaller a and therefore a smaller tidal force. When they reach or Moon reaches a position where they are not aligned with the Moon but stand side by side with centre of Earth with same distance to Moon as it, then we reach the lowest point of the tidal forces.

That was one interpretation. Now let us get to the actual words of J. Rouch.

"Let r be the distance of centre of Earth from centre of Moon. The attraction of Moon on centre of Earth is, in virtue of the law of universal gravitation [F=GMm/r²], proportional to M/r², M being the mass of the Moon. The distance r is in the mean constant. [He would have been wiser to say that it is in any given moment equal to itself, since that is very much more relevant]. The attraction of Moon on Earth, since the distance r remains constant, must be counterbalanced by a centrifugal force directed in opposite direction of attraction and equal to M/r²."

The obvious problem is: where does J. Rouch get this centrifugal force from? It may be a postulate to have it, in order to make distance of Earth and Moon remain constant, but in astronomy that is taken care of by the speed of the Moon rotating around Earth. Not by any force on Earth directed opposite way. In Sungenis' system, there would be a pull, and the gravitational forces of the Universe (all stars taken together rotating daily around the Earth) would pull the Earth immediately back into position in absolute centre. Such a pull and pull back would make Earth vibrate with a vibration strongest on a line through the Earth, aligning centre of Earth with centre of Moon and second strongest on a line aligning centre of Earth with centre of Sun, except at newmoon and fullmoon when these two lines coincide.

So, for water on point C, it is pulled upwards by the Moon and shaken back down by Earth pulling back with a slightly less force. For water on point D, it is pushed upwards by the Earth's backpull from the Moon and pulled down by Moon's slightly less great pull. And for either, the pushing or pulling up is slightly greater than the pulling or shaking down.

Note here, that though the Mathematics is quite equivalent on either side of the Earth on points aligned with centres of Earth and Moon, the physical causality is not the same, but in fact inversed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou Library, Paris
St Geoffroy, bishop and abbot
8-XI-2012