Philosophy Now Forum

Leo,

It seems you read pretty fast the two preceding articles

Oh, they really merit that we pay attention on them. I cannot say at this time that all Mthis' results are necessarily true, and I know this is really astonishing that a single man - even genius - could achieve so many deep works.

But I am faithful in him, because his articles have intrinsical meaning.

Leo, I don't think that - as a philosopher - you can on a hand say "I want know", and on another hand say "The truth is stated that historical gravity stand as such, without deeper possible insight".

On the page about G, he is able to explain why gravity is higher above deep seas, and his explanation about moon is at least surprising:

This means that if the Earth were denser, you would weigh less, not more. You weigh less on the Moon not because it is less dense, or because it has less mass, but because its foundational E/M field is stronger. And its foundational E/M field is stronger because the Moon’s radius is smaller than the Earth’s. Although the Moon’s body is less dense, as a whole, its E/M field is more dense, on the surface. And this is simply because it has so much less surface area than the Earth (13 times less). You can’t just look at mass or density, you have to look at field lines; and the density of those field lines at the surface determines the strength of the foundational E/M field.

Niels. I have no comment to make on Mathis or his theories. In the main I accept the facts of physics as they are currently understood by mainstream science and my only criticism of physics as it is practiced is in its understanding of space and time. I don't claim that physics is "wrong", in the sense that Mathis does, but rather that the narrative of physics is wrong because it fails to understand that the Cartesian space is a mathematical object and not a physical one. Therefore physics is modelling a hologram of the universe and not the real universe as it is being MADE.

Yes, I agree.

There is important things here, cartesian space. Miles thinks that the non-cartesian spaces are fallacy, (but I have some more further reading to do).

And... the narrative. As I was influenced by physical or chemical principles meaning that the way between a beginning and a result had no importance, I think many physicists were such influenced in making their reasoning and experiments (see Compton's effect), and now... I regret deeply this for them as for I.
Narrative is the music of thinking, and Miles have very good partitions.

Leo, there is one thing that we only can question about science: Any, I mean any, attractive interaction cannot be explained in a mechanical way. Science wishes to find a "graviton" to let a mass tell the other "hey, approach me", but (what lead the graviton ?) a non-mecancal way is only magic.

"Attractions" are only magic, you cannot imagine an attraction without some virtualities, even a kind of photon going with respect to c, to give a texto to the mass for what it have to do.
I think this remark is the deepest. Physicists want to invoke "something more" - maybe because they have lost their own spirituality and are searching another in a kind of math or virtuality - but this is no science.

The idea of the graviton was not without its internal logic, Niels, although nowadays it's an idea which has thankfully lost popularity. Physics can't seem to get past the notion of gravity as a "force", and the other forces which physics has designed have been very successfully modelled in terms of particle exchange, but this heuristic simply cannot be applied to gravity. Einstein's model for gravity was unquestionably an improvement on Newton's but it remains irretrievably an action-at-a-distance model, a point which Einstein himself was always perfectly willing to admit. To suggest that matter follows the trajectory of a geodesic in a hypersphere is a blatantly unphysical statement because the Cartesian space has no physical properties. This is a mathematical statement only and must never be considered as anything other than a metaphor for the description of an underlying process.

The saddest part of this whole sorry story is that Einstein knew all along that gravity was not a force. He saw gravity as a fundamental property of the universe from which all the various particles, fields, constants and forces of physics must derive, and the man was bloody right!! Unfortunately he missed the elephant in the room because of Hermann Minkowski, a metaphysically challenged jackass who didn't know his epistemological arse from his ontological elbow. By representing time as a Cartesian dimension in SR Minkowski had effectively spatialised time out of existence, which meant that Einstein was unable to recognise the truth in his true relativity masterpiece which was GR. In GR Einstein conclusively established that time and gravity were simply two different sides of the same coin and thus could be quantised equivalently but this idea is completely unworkable in the 4D manifold. The poor bastard spent the next 40 years of his life looking for a unification theory within the spacetime story and the rest of the physics community has wasted a further 60 years since on the same futile quest.

They've got more chance of flying to Mars by flapping their arms and farting.