Mach’s principle & spacetime

0:00 Thank you very much for your time. This pdf contains our two names. I propose to go very quickly through the first part of the lecture which is a kind of historical introduction and which is not without its utility. In addition to a relatively apparent space, in Newton we all know how to contemplate an absolute, real and mathematical space, and the place, the absolute movement, should not be related to any object of reference. Jan spoke to us about the correspondence with Leibniz, who identified the useless determinations of the superfluous structure in Newton's absolute rich kinematics. By making a well-known equation, that is, the translation of any object, from the east to the west, does not produce any decelerable effect, and since we observe no difference, the situations we contemplate are identical according to this criterion. But there were even superfluities in relation to Newton's dynamic, which was based, as I know, on the proportionality of forces and oscillations in the secundum plexus. The young Galileans had noticed the difference of several effects, as I call them, in inertial transformations.

2:30 Modernization of this phase, so that it shows if there is a uniform and non-futural language in the art, so that the movements are uniform and non-futuristic. And the variances, he expresses... And the art... It's not legal. It's not the laws that are invariant. It's the effects. They describe the effects one by one. Newton's law, specifically the fifth corollary, is more economical. The invariance of Newton's laws is extreme, with the advantage of the incision of the grommets. The invariance of the effects, and to use the term of Gamillet, which he directs. Modernizing with an anachronistic language, what invariance does it have? So we see that these derivatives, the first and the second, are quotients of difference. Already, the difference, not necessarily a decimal, but a numerator, the position difference, is indifferent to the addition of constant vectors. And so, the speed is indifferent to the action of the Eastern group of transformations that act on the three-dimensional space. And the speed, the difference, not even an infinite decimal, of speed is also indifferent to the addition of a constant speed. The group also includes transformations, inertial transformations, in Italian we say agiscent, on space-time, dimensional, and I want to get to the second point by inequality and proportionality.

5:00 The change in the acceleration movement is proportional to the motor force imprinted and will take place along the right line along which this force is imprinted. And so this distance is covariant, let's say, in relation to the group of rotations that we have when we turn. Acceleration, and we turn in the same way the force applied to maintain the law, and temporal transformations. We can say that the second point is indifferent to the action of the Pelletier curve. Here I have chosen to make a knot of this half of PSI. A broader group would have compromised the laws, demanding a generalization with other forces. A generalization, as I know, made by Cartan with new laws and new forces. The general covariance of Newtonian formalism, flat connections, I mean connections that are not flat, of Cartan gave the impression of relating inertia and acceleration. But the acceleration that goes in Cartan's theory is not the second derivative, which is the derivative of the coordinate, but the one observed in general relativity, which is the absolute derivative as a tensor. And the relative acceleration goes well or disappears or does not, it is the substitution of the coordinates, while the absolute acceleration is generally invariant and transforms itself into a tensor.

7:30 Null in a system, it will be in all of them. But there are other theories, I don't understand. Cartan. Yes, but what is it? Cartan and 223 on the Newtonian theorem? That's it, exactly. It's difficult. And it's true? It's difficult. Yes, yes, I agree. It's with Cartan and it's true. I'm trying to modernize the notation. Yes, yes, of course. The formulas have nothing to do with it. It's not philological. No, no, no, of course. It's the game. So, the two accelerations... Distinctions, of course, can be made, in general, and the strange thing is that Newton makes, in my opinion, exactly the same distinction in what we read. So, here it's one, the derivative, and here it's the other, who takes into account... That's the theory, that's the equation of Einstein's genealogy. It's algebraic, isn't it? It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. It's algebraic. These two accelerations coincide with inertial coordinates, which cancel the components of the connection, and the acceleration of the inertial movement is cancelled in any representation, in any coordinate system. The connection is precisely there to compensate for the acceleration of non-inertial systems. This is the second term I have shown. So, we have two criteria for inertiality, that of Newton and that of Cartan. The Newton's criterion is a limited utility for our interests, referring to the early industrial-international movement. You can't say it's a limited utility, it works!

10:00 Excuse me! No, no, but for... Yes, yes, yes! Excuse me! For my interests... I don't belong here! And Einstein, among others... I'm going to get to a relativity of inertia. Yes, yes, we have absolute inertia. The course will bring me a renal inertia. No, no, it's not you who's going to do it, it's just to put... We're going to put a little more energy. Well, yes. We characterized the inertiality by referring to the simplicity of the laws. That is to say, the inertial systems would be those that give the law the simplest form. What does that mean? That this condition is, for example, simpler than this other condition with the second term, which would compensate the acceleration of a Greek system, let's say accelerated, not inertial. But we have just seen that Cartan's theory takes into account a possible abominable acceleration, so to speak, of the complication. Accelerated coordinates do not seem to complicate the syntactic form of this derivative of the expression, which is already complicated, complicated in any case by the second term. But what form, one might say, does not become simpler when the second term disappears, that is, when the coefficients of the collection are cancelled? In this case, we come back to Newton. We have the first term, which is exactly that of the first law of Newton's extreme. As the Newtonian condition relates its values to an inertial system, the Cartan condition depends on a collection, which is, at the end of the day, almost ignorant. The collection can be seen as a stipulant convention. That's my point of view. How do the three-dimensional branches of simultaneity push each other by a congruence of curves mathematically arbitrary, not physically arbitrary, mathematically arbitrary, that we call geodesics. We take them as geodesics. The knowledge would then be determined after, a posteriori, a posteriori if you will, by the condition that it is annulled for these objects, these curves, these lines of the universe that we call geodesics.

12:30 Choose the first congruence, the connection is thus determined to direct all the other congruences that are inertial in relation to the first. A single congruence by providing the talents of absolute rest overdetermines therefore the connection, which represents inertia in general and thus poses the balance of all the inertial congruences. So, finally, we see purely formal criteria which are powerless for... The determination of inertia is obvious, it shouldn't be taken for granted, but isn't there a more physical, empirical method? Can we not characterize universal systems such as those that are free to suppress the action of other bodies? We know that this is problematic, even if some bodies can be considered less heavy, as if they were sufficiently suppressed by the influence of the rest of the universe. First of all, we have no access to these bodies. Those we have around us are all pulled, accelerated. An absence of exact, precise gravity should be observed in relation to a system of one single body. So what to do to establish inertiality? By inertiality, I mean this, I make an opposition, an interposition between, I don't know, Aristotle spoke of natural movements and violent movements. I call it the violent movement, the accelerated movement, the natural movement, the inertial movement. How is it inertial? And what to do then? Newton, a character, has several passages in the Scholes that celebrate the Scholes on time and on the absolute space of time. This shows that Newton was able to reach absolute acceleration, to inertia, through its causes and effects, through forces. He is the hero, the hero of Ignatievich on this site.

15:00 And that's it. The passages say one thing. We distinguish between rest and absolute and relative movement. All of these are described by their properties, causes and effects, like the force, the force under the iris, the forces in the bodies for the generation of movement. The causes and effects of the rotation of water cause the concavity of the surface, and the forces applied to the opposite sides of the globes cause the variation of the joint. But even Einstein speaks of causes and effects in his analysis. This is the experience of thinking in which he contains the ingredients of Newton's experiment. In his first pages of his article of 16, he addresses Newton. There is fluid in the patient and the two bodies rotate. Two fluid bodies, S1 and S2, which are of the same size, float freely away from other objects. They rotate, one by one, around the axis that binds them. The distance does not change and they rotate with respect to each other. The first is a sphere while the other is deformed and is an ellipsoid. How to interpret this difference between the shapes of the two fluid bodies? Einstein's analysis betrayed a zeal, an intolerance towards mathematics.

17:30 Newton, in his metaphysical influence, could have brought it up to... ...would perhaps have been carefree of the absence of a manifest local cause, observable. Newton would have been satisfied, presumably, to see the deformation of S2 as the effect of an absolute rotation, which it would therefore have served to reveal. Einstein's epistemological intransigence makes it more demanding, more severe, because of the cause. We do not see any inner local cause that belongs to the system and looks elsewhere. And he finds the cause in the distant masses that rotate in relation to the second, to the deformed fluid body. And the general relativity, which he will formulate in the following pages, eliminates absolute inertia, which does not relate to the masses, by explaining its dependence on matter. So, we have already talked about Witten, Connes and Hawking, we call the answer to Kretschmann. In short, he uses this capital G which is wrong. It's not the tensor in Einstein, that's the important thing, it's the state of space, the space-time, described by the formative tensor and the non-formative tensor, which is the minuscule G. All these terms are determined by the mass of the bodies. As mass and energy are, according to the state of general relativity, the same... You are absolutely right. Thank you. They are the same thing.

20:00 And energy is formally described through the symmetrical and minuscule tensor. Metrics, let's say, are determined and conditioned by the tensor and the energy of matter. We have an interpretation that we want, but in a way, it is an independence of the energy of matter. And we have arrived at the context of general art. We must now ask ourselves... What objects, in general relativity, will generate matter and what will generate inertia? At this point, we can consider the determination of inertia by matter. We have just seen that Einstein uses T-minuscules. It may be a too narrow characterization, as we can see in the science fiction that the dependence of the coordinates, the non-tensorial character of the minuscule pseudo-tensor, allows the attribution of matter-energy to almost any region of the universe. No, no, we'll see. There will be two candidates for mathematics. For the moment, I consider the candidates for mathematics. The two candidates that I consider for mathematics are the classical candidates, the affine structure, and a slightly less classical candidate, the projective structure. No, Einstein, on the other hand, the structure of... But you, for example, what do you think?

22:30 Well, I make considerations that refer to what Einstein said, but I consider... Well, you see, there are material problems, it's you who do it. No, no, it's not Einstein, yes, yes. But it's not a pseudo-dancer. Well, the pseudo-dancer is... Einstein, in 1916, said that there is only covariance. There are still non-conservative pseudo-thinkers, only non-conservative pseudo-thinkers that, in general, are not problems that have never been solved. All these are very complex problems. And these subjects are still notions. Eventually, this pseudo-thinker T could allow an attribution of this materiality. Even in places, even in space-time regions, where T-minus is zero. But if, let's be honest, if we spread matter chronically, by spreading the material T in the region where T-minus is zero, we practically end up removing any possibility of disagreement from Newton and Leibniz. Everything is T. It is not surprising that this material, or at least not potentially material, is determined by this generalized matter of properties, including energies, as Einstein says, of this same generalized matter. The debate between the partisans of Milton and Leibniz has already been declared and denounced. The best way to ensure complete suppression is the imposition of the forced body, by a kind of suspect, an object or two, which can fill everything with the ambiguous matter to which... which disappear in free fall and reappear in acceleration. To maintain and fuel a debate, which is healthy, and which is also threatened by the new categories that have surpassed a number of traditional theories,

25:00 I would not admit as material the legends where T-minuscules exist. So, first of all, Marx and Einstein explicitly speak of distant masses. But Einstein's equation could seem, at first glance, to express an excessive determination of the energy at point X by matter at this point. The energy would thus be determined by the local matter and not the primary one. To fix the ideas, let's take a material tensor that describes a powder with a high density and a speed of v. This would therefore be determined by the Euro density at this point, at this point x, but not in any case by the Euro density of x first at the points and corners of x first, and therefore these masses are weak. How do we intervene? Well, first of all, like electromagneticity, the continuity of the Euro function is wrong. They begin to give a semblance of continuity to the density of rho. Almost all celestial bodies, including the termination of rho, of x, actually go to the human scale far, far away from x. There is a kind of language substitution that can be confused. I am saying that the local can at the same time be not local. And we know that general relativity is also a theory of field, and these are holistic entities that in one take, or take, or not take, I mean, plague, plague and impact. These are aspects of the question that I will not pay attention to, that I will not mention, and that will only be presented in the context of the number of fields in which I use the term Poincaré.

27:30 We talked about matter. There is still inertia. I would like to present which, in my opinion, the General Assembly offers two candidates, more or less obvious, the classic candidate, the fine structure, and the less classic candidate, the collective structure. Thank you for coming. You're welcome. No, no, I understand, I understand. And the fine connection, the connection between day and night, determines... Geogeogeogeogeogeogeogeoge That would be the connection between the two. So the centrosion will have 20 degrees of freedom. Just like the derivatives are centrosion. Projective structure. It gives the geodesics, generalized, a very high reparameterization. Or the image of the universe, without parameters. I think there is no physical reason. In my opinion, physics is more reasonable to use the collective structure to represent inertia, because inertia is a property of degrees, degrees of equilibrium, not even a degree that is as simple as a clock, because the affine structure contains...

30:00 The affine structure also tells us about the inertia of time. The parameter gives the less comprehensive inertia given by the collective structure and therefore more purely material than temporal material. And a particular connection by fixing the value of alpha The projective class is divided by an alpha form, which sets the parametric parametrization of the generalized geodesics of humans. The collective structure has 24 degrees of more freedom than the actual structure of 24 degrees. These are the components of the bichimic structure, and this is the rest. All the structures are projectedly affine, equivalent to each other, by making an alpha barrier. To identify this lambda with a kind of acceleration of the parameter of the lambda pole. I support that this is quite in the spirit of the writers, certainly Van den Steyn and others. Einstein always speaks of unterbestemmung, überbestemmung, he counts the values ​​of liberty and the relationship of fate. So, the relationship between the collection of films and the thought of the computer can be explained as follows. The curvature tensor of an arbitrary connection has 96 independent quantities, it becomes 80 if the connection is asymmetrical, and on the other hand, if it is also metrical, in which case B becomes the Riemann tensor, R.

32:30 The Einstein equation puts an equality between P and the Einstein tensor, G, where the scalar R of Ricci is the fraction of the tensor of Riemann. Several Riemann tensors will therefore correspond to the same tensor of Ricci. These 10 degrees of freedom are the protagonists of the question. This contraction removes the 10 degrees of freedom from the terms of the symmetric index. 20 minus 10 equals 10. And these 10 degrees end up being replaced by the Weyl's tensor. This is precisely freedom eliminated by contraction. The subject, at first glance, seems to under-determine the future. It is a part of your freedom, the future projected by 14. A good part of the under-determination is based on the freedom of gauge, in the physical sense, which has been discussed in the lecture on the hole, which is the work of Hermann Hamilton. So here, to see how the choices of gauge quickly eliminate the lists of freedoms, we consider the two angles of the regime. I do not want to add here to the considerations, to the literature on Troubles, it is not that, it is above all the two degrees of freedom that remain after we have made the choice of the gauge that remains at this moment, but I do not want to spend too much time on it, but then, the linear approximation, the weak perturbation H in the state, it seems to keep the... I am going to explain how they disappear.

35:00 First, a choice of coordinates that satisfies these four continuity equations eliminates all this. And this is symmetrical. So, the three degrees of freedom that are represented in the wave vector, K, disappear if we propagate the wave along one of the axes, for example, in the third spatial direction. So, we have two degrees of freedom in the gravitational field. The polarisation of the universe is perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the universe. Four first, then one, and then the other. So there remains, in relation to the affine structure, the double identity of polarisation. But is it an inactive gauge, or more decorative and without concrete consequences? Those who, in the tradition of Leibniz and Marx, hope to bring the movement back to life, They will want to spread this freedom as a mathematical fiction without physical pertinence, because now matter under-determines inertia, apparently, when we have made all these choices of two days by two days of freedom, but it is embarrassing for a true relationalist like Marx, who would want matter to determine inertia in a complete way. These are two of the remaining freedoms.

37:30 But do they have a real physical meaning, or is it a fiction? And how do they represent the polarization of the non-verbal gifts? We can say that these two freedoms are as real as the non-verbal gifts. Since these areas have not yet been discovered experimentally, the reality of art is based on theoretical considerations. It could rely, for example, on an attribution of matter-energy, and we come back to what I had promised to the pseudo-thinkers and musculars. We have seen that theory allows attribution to the areas of mathematics. With this object, finally, it takes this form if we try to understand it. But what must be kept in mind here is the presence of the connection. So if we are in free fall, if the connection is null, T minuscule will be also null. That's what's important. And we immediately see here that it's not a torsion. Because a torsion can't align in free fall to appear in acceleration. That is to say, we can't verify that the observer sees something while the other sees nothing. And so, T-muscule and everything that represents it is born in communion. Is the reality of T-muscule really compromised by this dependence on acceleration? In the end, the general reality was at the center of traditions that founded the truth on invariance, linked, among other things, to Hilbert, Diol, Kueckle, Duzan. They have the singularity in two parts of the physics journal, in November 1915 and then in 1916. There, it is absolutely clear that he associates reality and invariance very strongly.

40:00 Quasi-efficacious, in the book of 1921, Johann Einstein's Inevitability Theory, it is the central thesis of the book. On each page of the book, he repeats this notion of the association of reality and invariance. He understands, as everyone does at the time, maybe even today, covariance and invariance. And certainly Einstein. Einstein is a delicate case. He is not completely explicit on this in 1915-1916, but he becomes, in the four lectures he holds at Princeton in 1921, who published, I think, Piofor and Leporeto. I think that the English version is from the 40s, 50s, you can read it in the Press, in the New World Review. In any case, in the Fear of Horrors, I have the text. It is quite explicit. But we will see how to... Ah, no, no, that's it. Yes, that's the modern title of the Fear of Horrors. I don't have the time to translate it. If the text interests you, I'll send it to you. It's as if I'm writing a quote on it. So, Levitsch and Wittach, Schrodinger and Barthes, were convinced by the realist program that reality depended on invariance. Of course, it is not surprising that they wondered what the physical meaning of their muscles could be. We chose a system of coordinates that introduced a kind of equilibrium and which, consequently, killed T. Well then, on the contrary, T could not be better in a flat region, which is therefore porous in principle.

42:30 The idea of gravitational rotation is part of Einstein's grandiose construction, the idea of a gravitational tensor is part of Einstein's grandiose construction, but the definition proposed by the author cannot be considered to be definitive, but the definition proposed by the author, Tiuscu, cannot be considered to be definitive. They should necessarily compete with the second spirit of general relativity, which should necessarily belong to him, according to the spirit of general relativity. He speaks of the spirit, not of the letter. As I said, the letter is going to fall, it seems to me, on the ground, I believe. Einstein... There are two articles that talk about these questions. There are two articles by Einstein in 1908, one on the language of mathematics and the other, in the last one, on the conservation of energy. Levitsky-Vitain, along with many other colleagues, is against this, because you are not a thinker, of course, but I don't see why We should only attribute a physical sense to the magnitudes that make up the properties of the transformation of tensor components. So Einstein, here, is absolutely right. He admits the possibility that non-tensor objects are a physical sense. And here we are, both are communications in the social academy.

45:00 I have them in PDF if you are interested. This combination strikes against the position of the colleagues because U is the sum of T and T is minuscule. There, they have a density, of course. And T are not tensors. While they expect that all the magnitudes that have a physical meaning must... All of this can be considered as a scalar or a component of a thinker. You can measure it, of course, but my measurement and your measurement are not in agreement. The point is that if you have a free flow, you measure nothing. And I accelerate, I measure something. It's an opinion, it's a science. It can even be motivated in terms of a kind of coherence, let's say that the omega observer with the speed of W attributes the speed of W to the beta body with the speed of W, while the other observer attributes the speed of W to the same object with the speed of W. No, not the speed terms, but the digital speed, the prime speed. That's the speed module. I look at beta and I attribute it to a certain digital speed, I don't say scalar, I don't know how to do it. W. You look at the same object, you go to another one. And so the Borel affirmations, the speed of beta and W, the speed of beta and W first, these Borel affirmations contradict each other, of course.

47:30 The coherence can naturally be established with the language affirmations that precede the speaker with the observer, it's obvious. But in my opinion, the tension between Borel affirmations is not so important. Were they scalars, they would have the same chord in their head, the same volume, the same time for covariance, but of course the covariance is a quantity, we have to talk about syntax, not numerical equality. And coloration has long been considered necessary for mathematical existence. The point is that it is practically sufficient. And here I am not explaining the hypothesis. Here it is about physical reality rather than mathematical existence. Mathematics was a small subject when existence was complicated and threatened by a kind of incoherence. And the physical reality presupposes existence. How much... Very good, very good. But how much? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Well, okay. We say that it's very restrictive whether it's classical or ancient. No, no, no. Okay. If I understand correctly, we can say that these co-restrictives, let's say in a classic way, are only the tensorial scales that count for the rules, etc. In the same way, you have to replace this concept with something else, but also precise, because for me it's not that clear. But you say, of course we can say in our system, I measure one thing, I measure another, but still we have to follow this principle, like ours, which allows us to say, what is the objectivity that I'm talking about. Otherwise, it's just negative. Einstein does not add another factor, that is to say that physical sense should not be attributed only to the subject of science. But I will continue to develop the question. So, as we heard earlier, tea is closely related to the conservation of energy.

50:00 We know that the covariance divergence of this covariance divergence is zero. The strange thing here is that the ordinary divergence, and I am obviously underlining a summation on the line 1, will be only in relation to an inertial differential, where it coincides with the covariance divergence. This expression expresses losses and gains recorded by an accelerated observer, if we do not want these variations to be definitive and we want to see them rather as exchanges with... With an environment, one can understand when, in time, the pseudo-thinker is born like that, in my opinion, that is the origin of the object. I am not absolutely sure, but I believe that Einstein made it come out of this consideration. And it would thus be an object that compensates. This could vary for an accelerated observer, and this object composes its function, exactly the function of composing the variation, but a good conservation law will allow for integration, Einstein explicitly says, if you want to see the passage, you can see it, which complicates everything by involving a distance comparability, when we integrate on a legend. A sum, an integral, is a sum, and so we make sums of objects. Nothing prevents us from comparing, for example, the values of a scale, of a scalar plane at distant points. But we know that the density of mass-energy, and this is precisely what it is, is not invariant,

52:30 because it is transformed according to... So, zero is a zero-prime. The second argument here, the V, is a tri-speed, and this expression means the square module of the tri-speed V. So this is the law of time. So, rho, I see rho, because if I am at rest in relation to this object, but the other observer who moves, sees all this, a directional object. This is clearly directional, right? This is a serious problem. How to compare distant directions? Comparing components is, of course, possible. For example, in the modern world, we are happy to compare components. Obviously, such a comparison is not invariant. Directions equal in relation to one coordinate system can differ in another. We can also try, for example, to compare directions by parallel transport, but in this case, it will no longer depend on the coordinate system, but on the following course. So this directionality of the object, of the veneer, of the question of the logical machine, is very problematic. So, let's say, the sociology of the question, in my opinion, I am a... There is also an article by Carlyle Fair, Anti-Conservation D.D.R., I don't know what it's called. The question is that this article, above all, ends with the question itself. The community ends and the opposition ends. Einstein defends the law of conservation with a logical subtlety, a subtlety that frees the incoherence.

55:00 They have gained a widespread assent and support that the true law of conservation is more invariant than these detractors suppose. They try to distort the reality by attributing an impulsive energy to the universe, i.e. the part of the universe where there is energy. We will see this in the first part of the lecture. And they legitimize this defined object by first imposing a kind of general invariance. I use this term in general because I don't understand it. Each component is defined as... So here I write a density because we integrate it and there is no constraint. The approach to this is the article of May 1928. He will first talk about the invariance of each component. And then at the end, he will say that these four components, each more or less invariant, As in the case of vectors, they are covariant in the order of the order. This will be the approach. So, what does he say? To impose this invariance of each component, of each component that legitimates the object, which is not yet defined, he first states that the fields In fact, these are the densities of the grandeurs, are null outside of a space domain B, which is a barrier, which remains always circumscribed. And after that, it exists that the coordinates remain Mancovian, that the coordinates remain Cartesian, Mancovian, outside the barrier. Or you have to hear it in the sense that this age, it ages in the direction of the particular coordinate that we choose.

57:30 It's a product that is a little bit wrongly defined, but still it doesn't write. It starts from this time constant of each component, which is a consequence of this. The law of conservation is indecimal, so it integrates it spatially, on the three spatial coordinates. So, in one coordinate system, here he compares two coordinate systems. In the first case, there are two different instants, the first instant and the second instant, and each one has its own three-dimensional branch of simultaneity. And then he takes a second system and he finds another equality, but he wants to compare. So he crosses. He crosses with a third system that coincides with the first on the initial branch. He coincides with a second on the final branch. And then he establishes this kind of, let's say, invariance. This is an invariance that is good for transformations that do not change anything outside of the branch, which contains all the energy matter, energy in the sense of C3, and which keeps, there is an expression in the article of Einstein that I transcribe, that I translate in this way, I hope that's what he says, I'm not saying that transformations leave the vector of time in its radius. No, no, they keep the autonomy between space and time.

1:00:00 Otherwise it would be too strong. I explained the distinction that they simply keep the autonomy and not the particular subspaces. Plunged in a space that was otherwise full of energy and pulsions, it is now covalent in relation to the transformations of the time, and even today, without being considered as appropriate in such a place, despite Kretschmann, who had emphasized the instinct. So, as I said, too many mixtures of invariants, four components, each invariant in general, which form a kind of vector in which the covariance is now only of the orange. Certainly artificial, yes, at least artificial. A law of conservation of this kind can even lead to the production of non-verbal angles. Why? If our belief in the production of organic matter relies on conservation, this belief will be hindered by the limits and doubts we have about the law of conservation. This is the comment that Newton adds to the first law, and it is exactly in the spirit of the binary telephoto. We have already talked about it. And so, conservation can not only make us wonder about the reality of the artificial world. We are free, we see nothing. But even the general...