Subscribe in a reader

Pages vues depuis décembre 2009

mardi 30 septembre 2014

Gravitational acceleration inside a sphere : a program with or without bugs ?

by Yanick Toutain

Here is the code for my provisional program. I see no real bug 
The fact that my program examines only one quarter of the sphere should not be a problem for the final calculation of proportionality .... 
Unless ..... I am too tired to notice!

I DONT SEE ANY BUG
AND YOU ?

for a sphere with same density
% of radius acceleration
10,00% 1 m/s²
20,00% 2 m/s²
30,00% 3 m/s²
40,00% 4 m/s²
50,00% 5 m/s²
60,00% 6 m/s²
70,00% 7 m/s²
80,00% 8 m/s²
90,00% 8,98 m/s²
100,00% 9,81 m/s²



+++++
THE LANGAGE DOWNLOAD IS HERE
FreeBASIC Programming Language
THE CODE
SCREEN 19,32
DIM AS DOUBLE accpete, accfuge,vol,pi,scale,PROPGRAV
DIM AS INTEGER I, J,K,L,M,N,TOTAL
PI=3.1415926
N=20
N*=10
'L=250
L=N
vol=1/3*Pi*N^3
PRINT "vol/4 = "; 1/3*Pi*N^3
SCALE = N/100
DO 
 LOCATE 1,40
 PRINT "STARS ";TOTAL;" fract STARS/(VOL/4) :" ;TOTAL/VOL
    TOTAL=0
    accpete=0
    accfuge=0
    


FOR I= -N-1 TO L+1
    FOR J= 1 TO 1+int (SQR(N^2-I^2))
        FOR K= 1 TO 1+int (SQR(N^2-I^2-J^2))
            PSET (300+I/SCALE,400-J/SCALE),255
            TOTAL+=1
            accpete+=-(L-I)/((L-I)^2+J^2+K^2)^1.5
            'locate 20,20
            'PRINT ACCPETE
        NEXT K
    NEXT J
     locate 2,2
    PRINT ACCPETE
NEXT I
'PRINT TOTAL, VOL, ,accpete
PRINT TOTAL/VOL;
FOR I= L+2 TO N+1
    FOR J= 1 TO 1+int (SQR(N^2-I^2))
        FOR K= 1 TO 1+int (SQR(N^2-I^2-J^2))
           PSET (300+I/SCALE,400-J/SCALE), &hD2E6FF
            TOTAL+=1
            accfuge+=-(L-I)/((L-I)^2+J^2+K^2)^1.5
             'locate 20,30
            'PRINT ACCFUGE
        NEXT K
    NEXT J
    locate 3,2
    PRINT ACCFUGE
NEXT I


IF L=N THEN
    PROPGRAV= 9.81/accpete
    locate 2,25
    PRINT "  PROPGRAV   ";PROPGRAV
    SLEEP
END IF

LOCATE 7+10*L/N,0
PRINT L;" acpete "; accpete;" acfuge "; accfuge;" "; accfuge+accpete;" ";
IF (accfuge+accpete)*PROPGRAV>1 THEN 
    PRINT (accfuge+accpete)*PROPGRAV
ELSE
    PRINT 0
END IF

    
 L-=N/10
LOOP UNTIL L<0 font="" nbsp="">

ligne inutile ajouté par l'éditeur HTML> data-blogger-escaped-span="">
SLEEP
            
        
    
            
        
    
+++++

lundi 29 septembre 2014

China, Hong Kong A letter to Joshua Wong and OCLPHK (Struggle for HUMANocracy for REVOCABLE DELEGATES (not for DEMOScracy of owners of slaves)

Occupy Central 和平佔中  @OCLPHK


By Yanick Toutain
RevActu
29/9/14

I am a french activist  (I struggle for the end of capitalism and imperialism since 1973)
My international blog is Revactu
http://revolisationactu.blogspot.fr/
My town blog
http://lhavraisverite.blogspot.fr/2014/07/arretee-dans-un-cafe-pour-un.html
(the story is about me and a teacher : she denounced violences against children in a school and the french police arrested us in a coffee bar)

I discover your struggle against the stalino-capitalist, your struggle against the heirs of HuJinTao, the puppets of the foreign slavery capitalists Apple & co in their slavery factories of China 
I claim 1000 € for all the mingongs (They are paid 1/20 of their average GDP)
I claim 1000 € for all the humans over 14 (and 500€/child). 
Joshua Wong Chi-fung 黃之鋒
fondateur de Scholarism
Humanity can be proud of Joshua Wong and his friends...
BUT
But I suggest you not to demand democracy and presidential elections.
In Europe, the USA and especially in Africa, the poor suffer misery and slavery because of democracy and elected presidents.
The translation of "demos" is "slave owners" in Athens. (look at the Wikipedia fr)
We must abandon democracy (the power of slave owners) for humanocracy (the power of all human beings)
And so, I suggest you form groups of 25 by designating revocable delegates.
Starting with one delegate nominated by 25 basis delegators.


COMPLEMENT

Joshua Wong Chi-fung ( chinois : 黃之鋒 , né le 13 Octobre 1996) [ 1 ] est une société de Hong Kong militant étudiantqui est l'animateur et fondateur du groupe militant étudiant de Hong Kong Scholarism .

Occupy Central 和平佔中

@OCLPHK


OCLP is a nonviolent direct action movement that demands a fully democratic government in Hong Kong. Media enquiries: media.oclp at gmail dot com 希望在於人民,改變始於抗爭。
 Hong Kong

Semaine décisive à Hong Kong

Le Point - Publié le  - Modifié le 

VIDÉO. Ce week-end, la tension est montée d'un cran dans l'ancienne colonie britannique entre les manifestants et les forces de l'ordre.




Des manifestants à Hong Kong, samedi soir.
Des manifestants à Hong Kong, samedi soir. © Dong Ng / AFP


Un lundi matin pas comme les autres, à Hong Kong. L'ancienne colonie britannique s'est réveillée drapée des habits de l'insurrection après une nouvelle nuit d'affrontements entre les forces de l'ordre et les partisans de la démocratie. Aucun signe de répit après un week-end de violences au coeur de la cité financière. Après avoir dormi sur la chaussée moite, des milliers de manifestants réclamant des élections libres en 2017, poursuivent l'occupation du centre-ville, ignorant les appels à la dispersion des autorités. Et même si, dans un geste apparent d'apaisement, la police antiémeute s'est retirée lundi matin, le week-end a laissé des traces. Depuis samedi, la police utilise le gaz lacrymogène pour disperser des étudiants intrépides protégés par des masques et de capes de pluie, engagés dans des corps à corps avec les forces de l'ordre. Du rarement vu dans la très policée HK, où la Bourse vient de chuter. 
Les manifestants protestent contre les nouvelles règles électorales édictées par Pékin, le 31 août dernier, en vue de l'élection du chef exécutif de l'île. La Chine s'est engagée à offrir le suffrage universel aux sept millions d'habitants, comme exigé par les Britanniques avant la rétrocession de l'île en 1997. Mais elle impose la "démocratie à la chinoise", soit au préalable un "filtrage" des candidats. En clair, seuls "deux ou trois" candidats "patriotes", c'est-à-dire fidèles au pouvoir central, pourront concourir. Ces nouvelles règles sont "inacceptables", selon le mouvement démocratique Occupy Central with Love and Peace. Les étudiants des principales universités sont en grève depuis le 22 septembre pour dénoncer un "nouvel ordre colonial". La contestation pacifique a dérapé à partir de ce week-end, lorsque la police a interdit toute manifestation au coeur de l'île, en vue du 1er octobre, fête nationale en Chine. Longtemps hésitant, le mouvement pacifique est passé à l'action et semble avoir atteint un point de non-retour.

Scandale à Wall Street : C'est Goldman Sachs qui contrôlait la FED "Vous vous doutiez que les organismes de réglementation étaient plus ou moins contrôlés par les banques. Maintenant, vous savez." (Michael Lewis Bloomberg)

Michael Lewis reprenait vendredi
 sur Bloomberg les révélations
 de Carmen Segarra diffusées par
This American Life" et
par Yanick Toutain
29/9/14
"Le programme radio "This American Life" (Jake Bernstein) a obtenu  46 heures d'enregistrements sonores, faits secrètement par une employée de la réserve fédéral à l'intérieur de la FED et entre la FED et Goldman Sachs" (Bloomberg)
1 Vous vous doutiez que les organismes de réglementation étaient plus ou moins contrôlés par les banques. Maintenant, vous savez. You sort of knew that the regulators were more or less controlled by the banks. Now you know.
 Carmen SegarraLa témoin des malversations
ex-employée de la FED
Credit photo Earl Wilson
The New York Times
2 La seule raison pour laquelle vous savez la vérité maintenant c'est qu'une femme, Carmen Segarra, a eu le courage de lutter contre le système. Elle a payé un grand prix pour nous informer nous tous de ce qui était une évidence. Elle a perdu son emploi, ruiné sa carrière, et devra sans aucun doute supporter aussi une vie entière de poursuites judiciaires et de calomnies.( The only reason you know is that one woman, Carmen Segarra, has been brave enough to fight the system. She has paid a great price to inform us all of the obvious. She has lost her job, undermined her career, and will no doubt also endure a lifetime of lawsuits and slander.)  
(Michael Lewis Bloomberg)
extraits de 

The Secret Goldman Sachs Tapes


L'auteur des lignes qui précède est chroniqueur à Bloomberg.
"Michael Lewis, né en 1960 à La Nouvelle-Orléans aux États-Unis, est un écrivain et journaliste américain.
Ses best-sellers incluent Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game,The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine et Liar's Poker. Il écrit pour Vanity Fair 
(Wikipédia
C'est un ancien tradeur devenu journaliste. En particulier sur le site Bloomberg.
Sa bio est complétée ainsi

"Il a quitté le monde de la finance pour devenir journaliste, écrit sur ​​la politique, la finance et plus pour la Nouvelle République, le New York Times Magazine, Slate et d'autres publications. Il est rédacteur au magazine Vanity Fair".
C'est lui qui amplifié l'écho des révélations de l'émission de radio "The American Life"
Vendredi, il ne voulait pas gâcher le suspens en donnant trop de détail sur le contenu des bandes enregistrées secrètement par Carmen Segarra.
Depuis le scandale va en s'amplifiant.

ELIZABETH WARREN DEMANDE DES AUDITIONS AU SENAT

Hier soir Reuters annonçait que deux importants membres du Sénat exigeait la lumière sur ces agissements.
"Elizabeth Warren, démocrate de la Commission bancaire du Sénat, a réclamé vendredi la convocation d'auditions à la suite de la publication d'une partie de ces enregistrements qui remontent à 2011 et 2012."
Un autre sénateur, lui aussi démocrate
"Sherrod Brown, également membre de la Commission bancaire, a appelé de son côté à une "enquête complète et approfondie" sur la question."

DES PRESSIONS DE LA FED SUR CARMEN SEGARRA POUR LA FORCER A FALSIFIER SES ENQUETES SUR GOLDMAN SACHS

"Ils voulaient que je falsifie mes conclusions", Segarra a déclaré dans une récente interview, "et quand j'ai refusé, ils m'ont licenciée." (Jake Bernstein ProPublica 10 octobre 2013,
Voilà comment la FED, l'organisme chargé de surveiller les banques traite les gens honnêtes.
En licenciant ceux qui parlent. C'est la même chose qu'en France concernant les enseignants qui dénoncent les violences de leurs collègues.
A mot feutrés, hier soir Reuters révélait une partie de la vérité : 

Carmen Segarra, ancienne employée de la Fed de New York, qui a perdu un procès sur les conditions de son départ de la Fed, a enregistré les conversations et les a transmises au site de journalisme d'investigation ProPublica et à l'émission de radio "This American Life" pour illustrer ce qu'elle juge être une proximité déplacée entre le régulateur et la banque.Les enregistrements semblent montrer que les superviseurs de la Fed ne souhaitaient pas demander des informations précises à Goldman concernant une transaction avec Banco Santander, ni critiquer fermement ce que Segarra considère comme étant une absence de politique visant à prévenir les conflits d'intérêt. 
Dans un autre communiqué Reuters avançait d'un pas et titrait 

Interrogations sur les relations entre la Fed et Goldman Sachs

Mais ceux qui ont vu le film Too Big Too Fail ne sont aucunement surpris : les petits déjeuners aux céréales entre #SantaClausBernanke et le "ministère des finances US" étaient révélateurs du fonctionnement ordinaire des USA sous la coupe de la bancocratie.
Si le film était une fiction pro-Paulson le scénario révélait une partie de la vérité. Certes c'était un scénario d'où avaient disparu les vautours Bearish qui ont gagné des dizaines de milliards en vendant Lehman Brothers à découvert. Mais les relations entre Hank Paulson et Ben Bernanke étaient révélatrice en privé de leur résultat public : une complicité scandaleuse au service de Goldman Sachs.
On voyait précisément cette sénatrice Elizabeth Warren mettant sur le grille le chef magouilleur, le Père Noëil Bernanke sur cette vidéo (on peut avoir les sous-titres en français)

 
LIRE AUSSI L'ARTICLE DE SLATE

Des enregistrements clandestins montrent les difficultés du gouvernement américain à contrôler les banques

COMPLEMENT
Source Reuters 
Jonathan Spicer et Emily Stephenson, Juliette Rouillon pour le service français
Source ProPublica Jake Bernstein 

vendredi 26 septembre 2014

George Hrabovsky you deny simultaneity, objective reality, materialism, science and therefore intelligence


by Yanick Toutain

George Hrabovsky wrote "Because it has nothing to do with reality, and that is what science is all about. If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science. Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Einstein's general relativity predicts it exactly. Period.". 

Yanick Toutain

George Hrabovsky you deny simultaneity, objective reality, materialism, science and therefore intelligence 
"George Hrabovsky Because it has nothing to do with reality, and that is what science is all about. If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science. Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Einstein's general relativity predicts it exactly. Period.". 

Your answer is a series of mistakes and wrong about. 
It focused on the concept of "simultanéity" you refuse. 
1° "Because it has nothing to do with reality,"
Specifically, the concepts of "reality" and "simultaneity are twins. On the gnoseological level the simultaneous existence of billions of events is what is reality. 
2° "and that is what science is all about."
Yes, true science is the study of reality. 
It is THE DISCOVERY OF THE REAL "SCIENTIFIC LAWS" INTERNAL TO THE MATTER. 
But the pseudo-science of the relativists refuses to study reality. 
These people claim to invent themselves scientific laws from the signals. 
Those who think like Mach "The General Laws of Physics Are Summaries of Observations Organized in Simple Forms" or as Poincare "The General Laws of Physics Are Free Creations of the Human Mind" are donkeys or solipsists thinking themselves alone in the world. 

Mach, Poincaré and Einstein as ennemies of materialism and campaigning against the heirs of Isaac Newton 
3° " If we try to impose our philosophy "
Materialism is a scientific philosophy. 
But positivism (and therefore relativity who is his daughter) and idealism are only nonsense made by crooks. 
And materialism obviously imposes its laws to science since science can not exist without these laws. 
The materialist gnoseology is the foundation of all science. 
And all science must respect the laws of the materiology. 
Claim to found a science that transgress the first law of dialectics (transformation quantity quality) is nonsense as huge as to pretend inventing oneself the laws of science . 
4 Whereby the rest of the sentence becomes an absurdity or a tautology 
" If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature

5 ° What makes the totally humorous end of the sentence when it is handed down by a relativistic enemy positivist materialism, science and therefore of reality itself 
" If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science"
YOU ARE NO LONGER DOING SCIENCE! 
YOU ARE NO LONGER RESPECTING THE EVIDENCE OF THE REALITY! 
Simultaneity of ONE OF THESE evidence ! 

6° "Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury"
Newton forgot to take into account the delay of the signal. 

7 ° "Einstein's general relativity Predicts it EXACTLY. Period." 
This is not science but positivist rantings!
George Hrabovsky you deny simultaneity, objective reality, materialism, science and therefore intelligence


George Hrabovsky


Because it has nothing to do with reality, and that is what science is all about. If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science. Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Einstein's general relativity predicts it exactly. Period.
George Hrabovský vous niez la simultanéité, la réalité objective, le matérialisme, la science et donc l'intelligence
Votre réponse est une succession d'erreurs et de propos faux.
Elle portait sur le concept de "simultanéitéé" que vous refusez.
1° "Because it has nothing to do with reality,"
Précisément, les concepts de "réalité" et de "simultanéité sont jumeaux. Sur le plan gnoséologique l'existence simultanée de milliards d'événements est ce qui est la réalité.
2° "and that is what science is all about."
Oui , la science véritable consiste à étudier la réalité.
Elle consiste à DECOUVRIR QUELLES SONT LES VERITABLES LOIS INTERNES A LA MATIERE.
Mais la pseudo-science des relativistes refuse d'étudier la réalité.
Ces gens prétendent inventer eux-mêmes des lois scientifiques à partir des signaux.
Ceux qui pensent comme Mach " The General Laws of Physics Are Summaries of Observations Organized in Simple Forms " ou comme Poincare " The General Laws of Physics Are Free Creations of the Human Mind " sont des ânes ou des solipsistes se croyant seuls au monde.
http://revolisationactu.blogspot.fr/2014/09/mach-poincare-and-einstein-as-ennemies.html
3° " If we try to impose our philosophy "
Le matérialisme est une philosophie scientifique.
Mais le positivisme (et donc la relativité qui est sa fille) et l'idéalisme ne sont que des stupidités énoncées par des escrocs.
Et le matérialisme impose évidemment ses lois à la science puisque la science n'existe pas sans ces lois.
La gnoséologie matérialiste est le fondement de toute science.
Et toute science doit respecter les lois de la matériologie.
Prétendre fonder une science qui transgresserait la première loi de la dialectique (transformation quantité qualité) est une absurdité aussi énorme que de prétendre inventer soi-même les lois de la science.
4° en conséquence de quoi, le reste de la phrase devient une absurdité ou une tautologie
" If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature"

5° Ce qui rend totalement drôlatique la fin de la phrase quand elle est prononcée par un positiviste relativiste ennemi du matérialisme, de la science et donc de la réalité elle-même
" If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science"
YOU ARE NO LONGER DOING SCIENCE !
YOU ARE NO LONGER RESPECTING THE EVIDENCE OF THE REALITY !
Simultaneity is ONE of that evidence !

6° "Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury"
Newton oubliait de prendre en compte le délai du signal.

7° "Einstein's general relativity predicts it exactly. Period."
Cela n'est pas de la science mais des élucubrations positivistes !


THE BEGINNING


Why do the relativists pretend that Isaac Newton disregarded their arguments while he had already answered all of them by demolishing the relative speeds of René Descartes in his De Gravitatione (1665-1666) at the age 23 ?
source SIR ISAAC NEWTON'S DE GRAVITATIONE ET AEQUIPONDIO FLUIDORUM  translated by W. B. Allen*
Page on williambarclayallen.com
Cannot add comment if you are logged out.
Terry Drinkwater This question requires more context to be comprehensible.  Who are the relativists?  What arguments were they making?  How did Newton respond?  Who accused him of disregarding the arguments of relativists?
Yanick Toutain Have you tried to read the book written by Isaac Newton De Gravitatione or do you ask such a question without doing any effort to know the real theories of Isaac Newton .?
If you want explanations about the text of this book.... ASK YOUR QUESTIONS but..... by quoting Newton
Terry Drinkwater Don't try to shame me for asking a question.  If I had the knowledge to contextualize your question and answer it, I'd answer it instead of asking this question.  And I'm not going to read a whole bloody book just so I can understand what you're asking.  Nor is anyone else.
Yanick Toutain "And I'm not going to read a whole bloody book just so I can understand what you're asking.  Nor is anyone else."
????
George Hrabovsky If you are referring to Einstein in his development of special, then general, relativity you are wrong. Newton derived a system of absolute space and absolute time, where velocity and position were allowed to change. This is consistent with the relativity principle and transformations of Galileo. If one attempts to do Maxwellian electrodynamics with the same transformations it does not work. You need the Lorentz transformations for that to work; when you make classical mechanics obey the Lorentz transformations then you get special relativity. In terms of gravitation Newton is completely wrong, Newtonian gravitational theory in no way explains the perihelion precession of Mercury; the only successful gravitational theory we have is general relativity. If you doubt it, then you need to know that it is the basis for the GPS system, so we know that general relativity is accurate to 8 meters in 20,000,000 meters, or 1 part in two and a half million at worst. These calculations are performed millions of times per second.
Yanick Toutain "Newtonian gravitational theory in no way explains the perihelion precession of Mercury; "
Nor EInstein......
Why ?
Because Einstein dont make science but "FREE CREATIONS OF HUMAN MIND" as Poincaré did it and "SUMMARIES OF DATA COLLECTIED" as Mach did it.
That is not science :
Science is the DISCOVERY OF THE INTERNAL LAWS OF UNIVERSE.

When I see the SUN, THE PLACE WHERE THE SUN IS is not where I see it......
To analyze the movements of planets we must begin to know WHERE ARE THE PLANETS at each moment..... but, this question is HERETICAL for a positivist relativist einsteinist....
Quora User
Quora User
The relativistic solution for Mercury's perhelion shift can be found on p287 in Bernard Schultz's "A first course in general relativity", 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press,  2009. Why do you pretend that you know what you are talking about?
Yanick Toutain As a former relativist, I can put myself in your shoes. But you relativists are too condescending.
It's a bit painful! I was not like that once!
Just a question for you help "raise awareness your status":
When you look at the Sun, his image has traveled the empty space for 500 seconds.
OK
But where is it when you see it?
Left? right?
You do not know anything ...
And to calculate the REAL perihelion, that is not enough to know FROM WHAT DIRECTION comes an image, you have to know where the objects are CURRENTLY.
Quora User
Quora User
All I did was apply your own language to yourself - and I'm the one that is condescending?

Your argument that relativity is wrong because Einstein is a so-called 'positivist' is as irrelevant as the argument that relativity is wrong because Einstein was a Jew. Or Newton was wrong because he was an alchemist.  The person is dead. Only the math remains.  If you don't like the theory, attack the theory, not the author.

So far, you have not provided any objective argument against relativity.

Relativity is part of science, not philosophy. You are posting your questions under the wrong tags.
Yanick Toutain The concept of simultaneity is one of the fundamental concepts of materialist science. How could we do without it?
George Hrabovsky Because it has nothing to do with reality, and that is what science is all about. If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science. Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Einstein's general relativity predicts it exactly. Period.
Yanick Toutain George Hrabovsky you deny simultaneity, objective reality, materialism, science and therefore intelligence
"George Hrabovsky Because it has nothing to do with reality, and that is what science is all about. If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science. Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Einstein's general relativity predicts it exactly. Period.".

Your answer is a series of mistakes and wrong about.
It focused on the concept of "simultanéity" you refuse.
1° "Because it has nothing to do with reality,"
Specifically, the concepts of "reality" and "simultaneity are twins. On the gnoseological level the simultaneous existence of billions of events is what is reality.
2° "and that is what science is all about."
Yes, true science is the study of reality.
It is THE DISCOVERY OF THE REAL "SCIENTIFIC LAWS" INTERNAL TO THE MATTER.
But the pseudo-science of the relativists refuses to study reality.
These people claim to invent themselves scientific laws from the signals.
Those who think like Mach "The General Laws of Physics Are Summaries of Observations Organized in Simple Forms" or as Poincare "The General Laws of Physics Are Free Creations of the Human Mind" are donkeys or solipsists thinking themselves alone in the world.
Mach, Poincaré and Einstein as ennemies of materialism and campaigning against the heirs of Isaac Newton
3° " If we try to impose our philosophy "
Materialism is a scientific philosophy.
But positivism (and therefore relativity who is his daughter) and idealism are only nonsense made by crooks.
And materialism obviously imposes its laws to science since science can not exist without these laws.
The materialist gnoseology is the foundation of all science.
And all science must respect the laws of the materiology.
Claim to found a science that transgress the first law of dialectics (transformation quantity quality) is nonsense as huge as to pretend inventing oneself the laws of science .
4 Whereby the rest of the sentence becomes an absurdity or a tautology
" If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature

5 ° What makes the totally humorous end of the sentence when it is handed down by a relativistic enemy positivist materialism, science and therefore of reality itself
" If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science"
YOU ARE NO LONGER DOING SCIENCE!
YOU ARE NO LONGER RESPECTING THE EVIDENCE OF THE REALITY!
Simultaneity of ONE OF THESE evidence !

6° "Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury"
Newton forgot to take into account the delay of the signal.

7 ° "Einstein's general relativity Predicts it EXACTLY. Period."
This is not science but positivist rantings!
George Hrabovsky you deny simultaneity, objective reality, materialism, science and therefore intelligence
Yanick Toutain Einstein when he looked at Mercury had absolutely no idea of ​​the place where the real point of the perihelion of Mercury!
George Hrabovsky This is an incomplete statement. Are you saying that he had no idea of where the point of the perihelion was? Which point of the perihelion are you talking about? The perihelion precesses around the Sun. There might be a focal point that remains the same, but that has little to do with the problem. Newtonian gravitational theory failed to predict the measured data. The Einstein theory did. End of story.
Yanick Toutain I see that you are "Software Engineer"
If you want to have a constructive dialogue with me (or any other scientific materialism), I'll give you some advice.
1 programming a body in orbit around the Sun (the Sun motionless yet)
2 Then you program  an OBSERVER on this body .... by calculating where in the sky he sees  the Sun (you can even imagine three fixed stars that would have the kindness not to move during the experiment ..... 2 be sufficient if both axes belong to the ecliptic plane)
3 When it's done and we agree, you will give a translation speed of 250 km / second to the Sun
and you tell me what the observer sees # 2

THANKS TO BUILD
George Hrabovsky That depends on the proposed motion of the observer relative to the coordinate system you set up. And what difference does it make if Mr. Livesay is a software engineer. That smacks of an ad-homonym attack. Okay, I am a theoretical physicist, and so far he is making good physically-based arguments and you are not. I have done models similar to the one you suggest many times, and it is completely consistent with whatever equations of motion I use to model the system—that is the limitation of computer modeling.
Linchuan Zhang As structured, this is rather unclear. It also sounds bombastic, which is odd for a debate allegedly hundreds of years old.