On 10/08/2010 03:00 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > > BTW, Mauro Lacy suggest googling "Miles Mathis", for an entertaining > read on certain formulas used in regards to Celestial Mechanics. I've > waded through Mathis' article on Mercury's Precision. Lots of > interesting stuff there. >
Hi, You probably meant precession. Or precessional precision, properly. I have been reading Mathis's physics papers during these weeks. You can start from any point, but I recommend reading his analysis of Celestial Mechanics and the Nebular Hypothesis, and from then into his own theories. He sheds light into many issues, from relativity to quantum mechanics. He's very good at deconstructing and criticizing (demolishing in some cases), and also at correcting or extending existing physical dogma, with a depth, clarity and simplicity that's amazing, and much welcomed. A refreshing "back to the basics" approach, which reveals big holes in current physical theories. Not so good, in my opinion, developing his own theories. He seems to be in a rush to do that, and that's not good. He's also probably very wrong in some main ideas. His idea of gravitation based on expansion is untenable, to say the least. But I feel that he adopted it because it's relatively economical, and simple. In my opinion, gravity is not separated from electromagnetics(by example by the adoption of a expansion model for gravity) but gravitational attraction and electromagnetic repulsion are both aspects of a unique form of interaction, mediated by an "extended form" of electromagnetism. Thinking that gravity and electromagnetism are completely different physical effects, which have completely different physical causes, is probably Mathis's "biggest blunder". A kind of "late mechanistic", a 18th or 19th century genius in the 21th century. He thinks, by example, that by "fixing" Celestial Mechanics, the indeterminacies will disappear; i.e. he thinks that the indeterminacies are the result of wrong math and models, not essential limitations of mathematics itself. He noticed that time is a derived(not intrinsic) quantity in physics. By the way, his article "a revaluation of time" is a good starting point also. variar Probably the best I've read at the moment is: - His article on Celestial Mechanics, where he shows that a 1/r² spherically varying force alone cannot produce elliptical orbits(it will produce spirally decaying orbits in the capture scenario). He also shows that Newton's derivation of the universal gravitational law from Kepler's equations is physically unsound, and that CM is then an heuristic science, due to Newton's use of the centripetal acceleration equation (a=v/r²) without physical justification. - His analysis and subsequent demonstration of charge being dimensionally equivalent to mass. - The article where he shows that Newton's equation already contains the electromagnetic part of the interaction. He modifies the Calculus. I'm not convinced yet of his reformulation of the a=v²/r equation. But I find very plausible that that equation(or a similar one) is hiding the attractive-repulsive (i.e. elastic) character of the compound gravitational-electromagnetic interaction. In short: it's very interesting and stimulating to read the work of a real genius on the internet, for a change. Regards, Mauro
