Newton, absolute to cosmic spacetime

0:00 You might have thought, oh, I can take the stand on the fact that it's dependent on distance, that's relational, but it could also be that it's relational because it's dependent on meaning in the text you're writing. So, if there were no mediums, there would be no gravitational interactions between particles? No, that I do not want to deny. So then, you are taking a position on the medium by saying that the gravitational qualities that would exist depend on the medium. Yes. Now, it might well be the case that, both for Newton and for the rest of us, until we discover the medium, we feel that something important is missing. I think this kind of issue continues to this day. Part of physics. But what I want to say is we really should learn to disconnect the question about what the cause of gravity is and what the medium in which it's transferred. This is not to say that there aren't proposals that might compute the kind of anthropological simplicity or expatriate purpose simplicity that combine both at once. But here is why I really, it actually, it hit me that I quoted this in the paper without realizing I quoted it, but if you look at this, this is from Carlos, one thing that really struck me in hearing it is that in Newton's account, the body is, and almost, we'll look at the derivates, the variables, the nature, almost, it's quite morally primary, and it seems to me that People have given a causal account if we say what it is about bodies and indeed their distance and there are other things I didn't mention, but how they relate to each other, that's enough, I think, at least it's enough of a start for Newton, I think, to say that we're identifying what the cause of gravity is, even though there's that bodies are to say to us something about the true complement that we've identified at least part of the cause of what gravity is.

2:30 But certainly, a mathematical philosopher would find this unintelligible, and people like you, who really say that without saying anything about the medium, we really can't say much, we've really said nothing about the cause, also will find it unattractive. But I think there's a lot of... I'd say you're not leaving the... We know it's a relational problem. There's nothing between us. Yeah, that's fine. So unlike... Wait, I thought you said you were avoiding it. No, no, no, no. Well, I've said several times that, in fact, I think action at a distance is positive in the third law and how to explain it. I've given you five or six quotes, and maybe I should collect them together at some point in the paper. But I want to say that all over the map, Newton not only talks about the reality of action at a distance, but actually thinks that when passive matter is appropriately configured, it becomes active. I think that's one of the views he presents in the update, but I think he has other views. So I want to say, for Newton, it's both conceivable that matter, that you've been guided in the prokipia, actually, no, I think he misparsed the letter. So where we disagree most is that what I think Newton thinks is absurd is passive matter attracting other passive matter. But what I don't think is ruled out is that either matter can be made active, he says that actually in the letter, it's quite possible that you want to say, oh, right, Yes, so in fact, what's more philosophy-flexible? Yeah, I mean, this is a lot, right? There's too many issues.

5:00 I think one of the things that I'm unsure about is that now, I think the attorneys say at some point that essential properties are ones that you cannot see in the body to do without. Yeah. This is your definition of essential properties, and I think you do find all properties to be accidental. At least in the sense that any property that, if you read rule three carefully, it seems to me that this is the rule that uses to say, the property to unify the universal properties that describe all good and bad. So he lumps together in rule three, extension and solution. and gravitational gravitation. So rule 3, what it does is it tells you what properties do you want that all others have, but it's not a rule that's based on anything you can do about it. So, just to answer my question, according to, if rule 3 is to be believed, Your distinction between essential and academic doesn't make sense. That's a very good question. I can say that some day, I read that Doug Miller's, Doug's joining Andrew too, on the case of body. He makes the following distinction that connects up with Catherine Brady's work, and that is between a law of constitutive conception of body and a kind of what's called induction. And one way in which I would modify my accounts, now that I've read them and also thinking through your talk, the things that are going to be essential are probably going to be the same for the laws of motion to be applied.

7:30 So that I'll take the laws of motion of telling us what is essential to matter, and then everything else, and being, as a bar, inessential or accidental, etc., will all be confident of saying what I want to say. Yes, I noticed that all I'm committed to, if you follow what I did directly, the first step, I'm not going to offer a consistent histogram. Then, in fact, I did offer a consistent histogram to show that I'm right. I drew on the issue of motion, claimed that it's suitable for the treatise, and ended up ignoring the other stuff. That's, it turns out to be a hostile one, and I can't handle it. That's how I'm going to... And right now, I'm going to be showing how to walk the pitch, plus other stuff, really. So I'm optimistic to recover. I mean, most of them are sure that essential and accidental are appropriate opposites, right? So there's a sense in which something may be essential but accidental, and so I'll have to do some more conceptual... I also think that one problem is, just to say, is I'm...

10:00 I'm sloppy, but one reason why I'm sloppy here is that when you go through the exchanges, Newton-Bentley, Newton-Coates, etc., is that the interlocutors all are bringing their own conceptual apparatus there, and then Newton, I think, is partly, not a zealot, but he's partly offering his own position in terms of their conceptual apparatus, and so this is one reason why there's a kind of instability in when we start collecting these quotes to re-figure Newton, it's another reason. It's not clear if the other speakers know the arguments that will end up doing a lot of work for law. Any other questions? I just had two small questions and then one more to go. The small ones relate just to what you referred to. I understood that you referred to the passage from Horizons, from 750, when you were discussing the Galilean conservation principle, but I forgot what it was. No, I didn't say anything. And I said, in order to get that, we'll have to remark this paper next year. But didn't you mention this? Yeah, I said, I said, I want to say, I think, but it's really me reflecting on Marx's talk last year. I would say that if we look at Perler's Five and Six and look at Scolian, I think there is a real effort to explain what attraction is in terms of some kind of Galilean conservation principle, as Marx described it, in ways that I think he really would have fully expected mechanical philosophers to at least have been. I think he's in part using some kind of Liebermanism there, because the example he actually says comes out of Galileo, to make plausible why, if you believe that two things that are connected, I've done a lot of work on Atkins' response, and I've always emphasized Atkins is really challenging Newton empirically, but there is also the metaphysical stuff.

12:30 And my argument is that neither the National Relation was right to be really depressed that somebody like Haddonfield, who depressed my work, ended up arguing also conceptually against him and not strictly empirically. Somebody like Leibniz, yes, we have no way of knowing that Leibniz meditated. So I think, instead of this being an example of incommensurability, it should have been an example of commensurability, and that it didn't become that, I think, is sort of the tragedy. The first 10, 15 years of the reception of the first edition. I don't think it was a polemic work in the way that, when it was polemic against Descartes, it wasn't polemic, it wasn't polemic vis-a-vis the mechanics of the middle of the century, and one thing that I think you've convinced me, and you and Shapira, is that editions too and truly become polemical works, and also, therefore, distort to us. What's God? He needs this close-up as well. Okay, thank you. Second question, you referred to fashion, but you did not mention the source, the text. Is it the Besantor? Yes, Besantor, but it's the later addition to Besantor. I didn't refer to the text because I couldn't figure out quickly last week what year was added to it. I had it in my notes, but I didn't have... I was wondering about this when you were explaining, I did not say that I get to follow all the But my question is, would it, from your conception, make sense to have a thought experiment like, imagine empty space with no matter in it. Would that make sense? Given that in all other accounts there is some relation between gravity and space, in your account this is not necessary, but do you then need, Aliyah, does it make sense to speak about absolute space empty of matter at all?

15:00 I agree, but I was thinking in terms of, in the background, theological arguments that play a role as well. For me to really feel confident that I have a good interpretation of Newton, I have to look at the theological papers in the five years, six years that I'm writing, and look at, you know, try to distinguish between those which are, as a war, his own views and those which are his own thought experiments, see if such a thing could be done historiographically, and then see if those fit together. And also, as another surprising point of that, the first version of the rules... It's clear that he still has some alchemical views about perhaps, you know, and I have to think about given what I'm saying here, if that fits in. Now I think yes, I mean so the bet I want to take is that thinking in terms of relational or dispositional properties actually is something he will be attracted to given at that moment's alchemical views. But this is also a historical bluff. I don't know the work, I'm not sure. If Michael Newman were here, you know, he might say they're idiots, you know. Obviously not. But that's, I mean, that's what, if I followed my own methodology, would be best.

17:30 But I hope this was good. We'll see, we'll see. I couldn't get back to, well, Dana would be the answer. So, if the body were to be in place, the body would have felt some kind of force, and I think you can sort of explain this by properties of the body, this is the body center, this is the body here, why don't you talk about actual relations, why can't I talk kind of factually by saying, you know, if there were to be a body there, it would have changed for a community by action at a distance, but this is in fact something that's... I don't need to talk to Bill, and we can talk about a lecture. Yes, great question. Bill Harper asked the same question to me. We got stuck at a conference, the airplane got delayed, and we had two and a half hours at the airport, and I said... I have an objection to the Stein reading. I gave my reading and the first 40 minutes Harper said, that can't be right, that can't be right. And then the next 30 minutes he developed this objection. For me, it's really very important that we're not talking about some of the measures of the field, but we're talking counterfactually about what would happen if the second body were put there, because then, ontologically speaking, you still don't need to do anything.

20:00 Okay, so good. So if we're debating on that, fine with me, we left behind Stein. The second question is, do we really want to go this way? Well, okay, so, but notice, and here's where I think the way that, notice how what you've just given is what he calls the mathematical view. So I think, which is, we can see it in terms of the one body and the second body as being attractive, and we then add, as a word, a counterfactual. I think that, as we, as it were, start re-describing Newton and assimilating the Newton's program of an economy program, And also, once we've had Hume stipulating, once all the other different notions of Hume starts to become a natural way to think about it. But in the treatise itself, which is the object of my paper, Newton says we're not going to go to the mathematical route, we're going to go to the natural route. And the natural route makes me think that it's something about the shared disposition and the shared nature of both bodies that's...

22:30 So what I want to say is this reading, I think, would be a very good reinterpretation to try out how Mark Williams did that because it's a new consultant. I should say it's new. Well, I wanted to take the same data with that. I'm kind of trying to explain because there is the claim about Newtonian. The quantification coming from the universe quantification where we can say about if there were any pair of... You look at all the things that we actually observe and have gravitation on the point between them, and given all the arguments in book three, which is a complicated argument, but given all the arguments there, it comes to the conclusion that words are indeed two materials, basic matter, field of force, so it's not a counterfactual plane when you go from... Yes, be careful. So I'm going to say, read like that, that's the consequence of the relational view. So I think as we really start strictly applying rule three and take what you call the bold leap, we do end up making counterfactually supporting claims. But these are claims in terms of two bodies, always pairs of bodies, as long as we're in agreement about that, and also as long as we don't say, and there's a force that's doing the explanatory work here, then I'm happy with it. I mean, I'm still agreeing that it's been generated. Thank you, speaker, again. We will start the next lecture in 15 minutes, so it's now 5.50 or so. Hey, can I take for the last one also a few papers? At least three? You also use this kind of books? Yes, that's a good thing.

25:00 Subtitles by the Amara.org community Our last speaker, I think we can say it was a successful one and a half day with a lot of food for your breakfast. I want to thank you all for coming. It was a great pleasure having you here. The last speaker is Professor Pierre Hedberg, who is actually Belgian, but is working since a long time already in France, Australia, and Australia. He's more of a philosopher than a historian of science, if I'm right. He published a few books, one which was called Critique and Totality on Count Antimonides, which was published in 1997. In 1999, he published a French book on a similar theme, which was on Count de la Nature, and there is now a book in press on L'Homme de la Nature. So he is a philosopher working on the concept of nature. He also edited a book on the invented universe, Birth of Cosmological Relativity, which appeared in 1989. So I think this kind of title gives you the idea why we were happy to invite him and are happy to have him here to give our thoughts. There's a number of concepts concerning Newton that I could program and not realize is that there's so much current debate on issues that I have confessed not followed so closely.

27:30 So, but these have made... A state of mind known as stochasticity is totally the ideal state of mind for a human philosopher. So, let me give you, let me take my chance. Indeed, I'm going to speak about a topic in Newton, which is Newtonianism. Or, let's have a look at that with a question, if I may call it a cosmological question. They never become nearly certain since they were detected. We have said very little about it in this public forum. And certainly it is well known that two out of seventeen of the eight in the final year of the century have been known topological thinking as such. At least nothing by comparison of the sort of topological thinking that we have. So the only text that comes close to mathematical thinking in Newton is the letter to Bentley, of course, that we know about, and the general picture about him is that, well, the so-called design armament that Newton introduced there is not very successful. It doesn't quite work. Newton seems to have been dissatisfied with it. I'm going to try to claim, looking at some of the basic concepts of Newton's natural science, I'm going to claim that what is interesting is the way or the ways in which Newton comes to terms with the problem and my point would be that in fact In being so reluctant to develop cosmology, he actually perceived what is truly problematical in any cosmology. Now, not only am I a known Newton scholar or even historian of science, but as a philosopher, I am mostly in the approach of Martin, who is in the study of Kant,

30:00 and that is something that gets on me for a number of years. If one looks at the right of modern science, one is struck by the fact that at the native level of the foundational concept of physics theory, one finds a noticeable lot of indecisions. For example, as we learned today and yesterday, whether space is relational or whether, well, are the mechanics effective in the development of certain mechanics. And as an example of this sort, indecisions at the level of non-discipline concepts do not affect the operational effectiveness of our best theory. Now, in the course of history, indecisions came to be interpreted as implementations or sometimes even as self-confliction. And here Kant diagnosed that Newton would have the variance of himself concerning the fundamental principles of his own theory. He was not willing to, or simply could not, decrease the methodology of physical science with this or with any method. The chronicle of Newton is a variance of itself with too much freedom or openness to explain the mechanism of a kind of force. Newton said that this mechanism could be explained by the action of photons, for example, the pressure exerted by an aether, but the ancient calling of propagation of forces could be used as inventory, or it could still be ascribed to some immediate divine action, focus. If any sense can still be ascribed to the mathematical foundation of the mathematical science, then it wouldn't discount revolution. In order to say that the attractive form is counter, In order to say that the attractive forces of two planets are proportional to their quantity of matter, that is, that God has trapped each other as matter, then gravity must be set to be an essential property of matter, which is what Newton could not accept of his users.

32:30 And what Newton might know about that, you know, is that he was the first to think that that was true, after hearing that from Newton. Clearly, the demonstration of force at a distance from one body to another will never be explained the way I need it. However, subtly, a lot of the very possibility of Fuxi is not happening. In fact, in his own days, and well before the scientific revolution, a great group of anthropologists, for example, Bruno, had already confronted this problem as he gave it some kind of a definitive account. Bruno referred to the heber as the ultimate connecting link to the body, but his heber said it is intangible and stressed, hence at the very limit of its intelligibility, because his strong quality is that it has none of the qualities that we women have in the sense of the body. Now, beyond his own interpretation of the cause of gravity, It can be argued, of course, that Newton is again at variance with himself as far as the examination of the matter in motion is. Indeed, his famous deduction from phenomena tolerates two different systematic abstractions. Note that in motion, Newton says we have to abstract from our creativity themselves. First of all, in the case of the structure of matter, Newton's argument, in the optics, those are still in peculiar terms, we in no other way know the extension of bodies than by hours. What is true of extension is also true of other qualities, such as hardness, impenetrability, mobility, inertia. In counter-distinction to the facts of motion, all these qualities are established, quote, not from reason but from sensation.

35:00 Where the power of sensation gives out, mathematics... But nothing is changed in the continuous chain of sensibly experienced objects. The search for nature is the event of sensible continuity. Things, as Newton says, could not have a nature of their own unless they were made up of ultimate, ultimate things, and the training of them would be changed. Reality, on the other hand, is that it was not an essential property. Because their nature is not changed whether or not they are studied. So we have many levels of dualism in Ute. Methodological, metaphysical, etc. I think that from the mind then, hidden forms of dualism are perhaps insidious and open. What I would call a cosmological dualism, I mean by this, I think is quite visible in Ute's earlier writings. For example, in the multiple questions that she provided Ute with the framework of thinking about the natural world. And we can argue for the fact of the infinity of space and maintain the doctrine of atoms moving through this infinite void and this position actually is maintained throughout life. In the text of 6465, he entertains initially an ambiguous doctrine of infinite volumetric atoms of matter, time, distance, and motion. For which he later substituted the two doctrines of indivisible minima, of the physical extent of matter and infinite space, and of infinite decimals, or units in magnum. Consequently, the way I see it at the low general level, there arises a most critical or awful unit in me, an ontological diacosm.

37:30 Newton never relinquished the idea of a mathematical realism. You could express that in entities and operations and mathematical structures and changes in the physical world, thereby promising the mathematicalization of nature once it's lost to the universe. So, even though declarations in terms of mechanical models invariably suggest themselves to him as the natural code of inquiry to the experimentation intent, you can never assume or imply that Aikman is, hence, the most critical theorist that has mentioned Aikman. These have to be assessed against the background of the topological implications of this early chemical model of gravity. A well-understood data can be used as a model to avoid falling into the crude form of material physics. I think this is the subject of the lecture. Now, in his book, Andrew Yannak, he did not reject, but transformed the role of gravity. He divided by a question into an empirical question and an anthropological reflection of a developed system. And this reflection, as he argues in his book, The profession led him to show that some causation in nature is non-mechanical. The conclusion that he reached on the basis of physical theory. But now, of course, he returns to cosmology, where the reflection is not bound to become a thing prior again. And if so, in what measure? So this concept illustrates, as few do, the presence of dualism in users.

40:00 Dualism points out, as well known in the media, that there is a clear political difference between space itself and the manner in which it appears to us. The difference arises from the fact that we measure distances between the individual things and what is evident to them, not the different ones. The dualism involved here is that between the fully actual and the unobservable, on the other hand. We would suggest a way out of this dualism. But we don't have to know this all really. Quantum space cannot be seen. In their stead, we use sensible matrices are substitutes for absolute. Even the nature of a quantum space is like saying in certain circumstances, assuming that truth and meaning are distinct from sensibility, the non-truth can pass up over time. We can develop various ways of coming to terms with this. That's really what I think. What is the nature of the transition from the immediately apparent to the not immediately apparent, and all to be essentially invisible? Is the transition justified on the metaphysical, the metaphysical, or the theological side? Is it from some kind of preconception concerning the link between these three sides that the whole argument is developed? It's a complex question because substitution... The substitutions go all too easily linked with approximation. Indeed, a fully yet unobservable nature space is mapped by the same character of the laws of nature. In Newton's world, the order of things is fully and exactly lawful, whereas the appearance of the world of the law is approximate.

42:30 Namely, how does the Newtonian law of manifestation behave as we go from the solar system to the whole universe, which tends also to be one? Interesting. Now that Newton did not concern himself to any considerable degree with the physical problem of his creation structure, the universe is certainly true from the general perspective. When John Cunliffe, for example, clearly looked him about his public science on the matter, Quote, I do not need interjections. I go with the famous hypothesis on the finger, of course. In the scolium, Newton confined himself to asserting that only direct and sustained act of God can provide permanence and stability to matter, which in itself is purely passive. But in reports of conversation and drafts he apparently did not wish to publish, Newton did develop a series of conjectures. There are many examples of the possible sources in nature that regenerate the great mechanical systems of the world. In one text exists that is the Bentley in 1992-1993, in response to Bentley's request for details about the possible physical consequences of pure gravitation if applied to the whole universe. Now from the standpoint of the modern cosmologist, the correspondence is not terribly exciting. I'd like to have in mind here a comment made by one of the scholars, Shukich, commenting on the lecture. He said, well, you've got to be fed up with the problem, because it does not solve the problem of the angular momentum of the planets starting from a final chaos in which everything is distributed uniformly, obvious from the standpoint of mathematics. And so Shukich said, well, you've got to be fed up with it. First, let me bring some precision to what I call just now the cosmological question in this context.

45:00 Concerning God, Newton says, famous quote of Gita, He suffers nothing from the motion of God. Bodies find no resistance from the omnipotent God. Yet allowed by all members, the free God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity He exists always and everywhere. The resistance shown by the material body is intrinsic then. God induces and determines changes and diversity in the world through an irreplaceable distance that we have in God from the experience we have in the material body. Now remember the famous problem at the hub of Jupiter. We don't know the nature of the portal of gravity. We are only struggling on its existence. That's why I have this problem with the counterfactual population that I have. When we observe a motion, it will be found its inertial path. The intensity of the force can be computed. Now, the inverse problem is the following. When we know the force, the orbit followed by the celestial body could be computed. I say could, because the problem at its most general level was certainly beyond the power of the mathematical tools of Newton. It likewise in the cosmological context. The model can be justified, starting from Atiyah's space, the center, and the dainty. But how do we go, and are we able to go, in the inverse direction, from the law of God? Does we turn to physics as a system concerned with the laws of center of human nature imply in turning this into a question? And this inverse question is just then this question. Inertia is inherent in matter, but this resistance is in fact only one of the observable plots of pieces in pressure, modified by natural energy.

47:30 Hence, in the absence of gravitation, would there be inertia at all? How are we to understand that the physical existence of inertia and inertial effects In his first lecture to Bentley, Newton thought classical by supposing an initially uniform distribution of matter and taking into consideration only the action of gravitational force to explain the origin of the basic mechanical systems in the universe. He says this, if the extension of matter is finite, you get an indistinct spherical mass. Now, compensations, in the name of Henry William Gross, they cannot explain the foreign structure and stability which are the part of this system. And this is embarrassing, because Newton's real achievement, after all, from a general perspective, was this. Newton's real achievement against alternative theory of the day relied precisely in his ability to supply knowledge of detail, as opposed to the merely general knowledge that led to the impact. The Cartesian vortices are inconsistent with the details and positions of opposition motions in the solar system. When accounting for the common pattern of motion followed by the planets, the vortex hypothesis is too strong, since it cannot accommodate the motion of satellites and satellites. When accounting for these local motions of binatom-appropriate vortices, then the hypothesis is too weak, since it can only benefit them. But not all of Newton's disciples were willing to think about the whole universe in terms of infinite matter. It is for some of his likeness, for example, Clarke makes the point that the material wasn't likely to be finite. And his argument is this. There could be no difference in principle between an isolated system, a single system, the universe, and the whole universe as a system. There can be no qualitative leap as you go from one local system to the whole universe as one big local system.

50:00 For him, the first logical question is this. Big local is no intrinsically different from local. He must be of finite number. He cannot be dealt with as an ordinary physicist from the outside in his very foul human text. For Clarke, then, the typical role of Atiyah's space overlaps its pathological role, if and only if the universe is finite. And in fact, to say the least, Newton's own world has been, in its own system, problematic. It was on the third level of the building. It seems to me they are not as plausible, to say the word, that they may not prove as possible different styles, patterns, and comments, from a knowledge of the original refinement. One of the most popular expositions of Newton's theory on the continent, the Fauteuil Roux, in fact, the accent comes again when he did this in the 70s. Everybody knows the name of it. Yes, yes, yes, yes. How can I pronounce Fauteuil Roux? Fauteuil Roux. Attention to the fact that Newton's theory, quote, seems to contradict itself with regard to the fixed stars. The stars, he says, attract one another and yet remain in movement. Voltaire realized the need to explain Newton's sentiment in this way. He also showed that there is no contradiction. In the general story of the Yellow Creek, Newton argued that God placed the stars at immense distances from one another, so as to prevent gravitational collapse. But no doubt, so as to prevent gravitational collapse. But Adam is much bigger than the third issue. It is certainly the result of long reflection. Minimization of gravitational effects does not rule out completely the occurrence of an infinite force of infinity.

52:30 He even assumes that the effect of gravity should be as little as the one of a magnetic wave. Consequence? For its initial hypothesis to form, namely, infinite matter generating the raw material of the universe, gravity should be an innate property, for otherwise its existence in the infinite universe could not be secured. But innate gravity? This is exactly what Newton did not want. And this is why he wrote there, following on Newton himself, he clearly referred to one of the objects. Conjecture that the reciprocal gravitation of two fixed stars might not diminish precisely according to the inverse of our laws, that is, not all things vary. But knowing that, in his own query, we can spoke of this variation not for our own world, but in the nature of this possible world, that they coexist with ours in other possible places, so different laws in different places are perfectly possible. And there's no contradiction in these differences as long as God knows them. But how could that be? How could a different world, in which different laws prevail, have nothing common to be regarded as belonging to the same universe? A null system, in which the constants of gravity and the inverse squared distance ratio are not the same as ours, would have to be infinitely distant from us, and not simply in a null place. For otherwise, gravitational forces within this distance, in ours, would have to assume two contradictory values. Newton's suggestion is that perhaps the density of matter can be changed by creating smaller atoms, thus changing the measure of mass and strength of gravitational forces without changing the law itself. In this case, other possible systems would coexist with ours in finite, variable distances. He also believed that the mass of the body in our world depends on the number of atoms times its volume. But he also believed that doubt is him who is printing atoms, even though, as we have seen, the nature of things that he said depends on their being constituted by hundreds of atoms.

55:00 The coexistence of different worlds requires us to rethink the very meaning of nature. We know that there has to be contradistinction to the perspective. Newton's cosmology cannot sustain itself without a dramatic reappraisal of the whole philosophy of nature. Nevertheless, in his letters to Bentley, Newton did contemplate the possibility that the relative motions of the star might be so slow to escape notice. Only to find a further point, indeed Bentley must have inquired about the possibility of the general star system as a dynamic system rather similar to the source. The system of stars, he said, might secure its stability that way. Witten replied this, put, if by any armament you have proved the flight-likeness of the universe, it follows that all matter would fall down from the outside, and it could be in the middle, and we showed this gravitational collapse could be avoided on account of the fact that, according to him, the matter in form might concrete into many round masses, like the bodies of the planets. And these, by attracting one another, might require non-legitimacy, much after the matter that the comets revolve about the sun. But a circular motion in concentric holds about the sun is never acquired by time. Newton dismisses the dynamical hypotheses for the whole universe, on the grounds that the starry universe is incapable of duplicating our own sources. Star would embody and constitute like planets, but they would move like comets. For him, the exemplarity of the solar system is so great that he cannot imagine movements of stars different from those exhibited around the Sun. Why should it be forbidden to conceive of stars moving on a black canvas? The answer is that you can always believe that comets do not exhibit with every part of the solar system.

57:30 Hence the problem of the law of gravity alone. If we were to rule out a globally dynamic system of stars, since the origination of the universe, David Gregory argued that keeping comets in directions both different from and contrary to the planets indicates that it is a divine hand, and implies that the comets are designed for use other than that of others. He continued a long time to formulate a coherent theory concerning the destination of comets, precisely because he first proposed planets and comets, as if the leopard had no destination at all, depending on blind natural forces. The role of comets in the conservation of the universe started from the belief generally held by English theologians of the time that the cosmos once left itself a decline in motion and regularity. Newton had been more looking from the outset for mechanisms by which God could periodically distort the quantity of motion and the regularity of movement among celestial bodies. The mechanism probably owed something to the ability of common states to dissipate slowly into space. Since common states, however, always pulled away from the sun, it is usually imagined that they were endowed with a force that overcame the sun. The mechanism to replenish the earth is only much later, at the time of the second edition of Ezekiel 1713, that Ezekiel insecure the replenishment of the sun as well. Struck by astonishing proximity of the path of certain comets to the Sun, he adopted the theory that comets could fall from their regular orbits into the body of the Sun and thereby replenish the Sun's energy. Now undoubtedly, this must have been a really difficult step for Newton. Even if he knew where the Sun's electricity came from, his problem is whether it was blowing up or only a collision between the Sun and the comet, magnified by the phenomenon.

1:00:00 Planets, Saturnites, meaning comets, etc. Since our world will eventually return to the original state of the universe, given from this perspective, the alternative faced by Newton is not whether the universe is broadly a statistical dynamic, but whether the renewal of it does or does not lead to destruction. If we go back to the last letter, Newton writes that it would be impossible for the matter existing now So it turns by itself to a state of affairs that we include. I would now add that the hypothesis of gravity being as close to the mist spread to the heavens is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the hypothesis of innate gravity. I mean, there's not more to the hypothesis. We have the supernatural power to live inside that, and therefore it's impertinent at the date. Forgive me, innate gravity. It is impossible now for the matter of the earth and all planets and stars to fly up from them and become evenly spread throughout the whole of the heavens without the supernatural power. And certainly, that which can never be hereafter without the supernatural power can never be here before without the same power. Now, of course, by unique property, we mean, in other words, the rule and the mutual power. And this applies to inertia, not to gravity, since the effect of gravity is dependent on a certain distribution. But why should innate gravity call for the possibility given to nature itself to return to the state where it came from? There's apparently no reason why gravity should operate now, or even at any other time, to induce a return to a normal situation. No reason except one, perhaps. That the exemplarity of the solar system means also for Newton the exemplarity of the mass. When Newton declared that at no moment in time can nature return to its initial chaotic state without the supernatural power,

1:02:30 he may well mean that it never really passed.