Hi, It's in fact thanks to you that I discovered Mathis's work, when researching your precession question. So I thank you, too.
He seems to be a kind of contemporary Newton, yes. I suppose he'll perdure. Time will tell. I don't like his mechanistic ideas, although I agree that it's convenient to have a mechanistic approach first, and only when that shows its limitations move on to other models and ideas. Always make things /as simple as possible/, /but not simpler/. I agree also with Physics being a fundamentally mechanical science, not mathematical delusions, diversions, or perversions. I don't like his expansion model for gravity, at all. I understand that his model can probably be made to work if you add a repulsive electromagnetic component, which keeps bodies apart against the gravitational "apparent attraction", but I find expansion ideas an unnecessary (and unbelievable, frankly) burden. Gravitation can probably be understood in terms of wave interactions. I think than we can imagine a normally repulsive (due to emission) field, that when encountering another similar field, manifests attraction(coalescence and accretion, actually) due to the appearance of a kind of interference pattern between the fields. That interference pattern would model a force field, and that force field will cause gravitational acceleration. In my theory, gravity is then always the result of an interaction, never the result of a single field. But of course you need something like waves, not particles, to make it work. My model explain the repulsive-attractive (i.e. elastic) nature of the field at solar system levels as deviations in the interference pattern, which in one direction cause attraction, and in the other, repulsion. To see what I mean, take by example a function like the square root, and apply it to a distance between bodies, normalized in the form that 1 is the equilibrium distance. The square root of 1 is 1, and you'll have stable equilibrium. The square root of any number greater than 1 tends to 1, that is, to equilibrium. And the same happens with any number smaller than 1. So you have an effect that(and between a certain range, of course), independently of the initial distance being greater or smaller than the equilibrium distance, tends to the equilibrium distance. Temporary divergences from equilibrium will be due to the inertia of the bodies, and to perturbations. That means that, given enough time, and provided that the interacting fields are mantained, all orbits would decay into circular orbits. That is gravity working at the celestial level. At the planetary levels, bodies fall to the center of the planet because they are completely overwhelmed by the local field on the Planet, which is again the result of the interacting fields at the celestial level. That means that Earth's gravity, by example, is not a consequence of the mass of the Earth, but conversely, the (accreted) mass of the Earth is a consequence of Earth's gravity. The field was first, and the accretion came later, provided that the field entered or directly formed in a zone with matter to accrete. By the way, so called dark matter is no more that a consequence of insufficient accretion, that is, fields that are devoid of matter at the moment. All very nice, but what is missing are the fields themselves! what are those fields? from where they originate? are they internal to the solar system or external? are they the result of "space pressure"? are they a result or manifestation of the turbulence of a dark fluid? what is then that dark fluid? and how exactly it interacts with normal matter? what are the formulas to describe those interactions? etc etc. On 10/09/2010 10:51 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > > Mauro, > > > > I have to thank you again for bringing Mathis's work to my attention. > I'm pretty sure I need to purchase his book. It's the least I can do > to support Mathis's continuing research. I want to do more than fork > over a tiny PayPal donation. Actually, I just want his book! ;-) > > > > I'm currently plowing through "EXPLAINING the ELLIPSE". It's > conceivable the article might end up helping me out in my own CM > computer simulation research. Hopefully I'll enjoy the challenge of > trying to comprehend Miles's perception on these matters, particularly > the mathematical aspects. His mathematical prowess is far more > developed than my own mathematical abilities. Hopefully, I'll still be > able to make some headway. > > > > > > OK... and now for the weird part. I fully confess the fact that the > following two comments are totally unscientific in nature. They are in > fact totally subjective in nature, and quite personal. But what the > hey! I'll blurt them out anyway! > > > > > > COMMENT 1: > > > > Several years ago while disengaging my mind in the midst of jogging I > found myself speculating about the link between gravity, acceleration, > and the curvature of space. It was during one of these jogging > sessions when I suddenly found myself "free floating" or speculating > about a version of an expansion model (aka curved space), where I > wondered: What if all "matter" is expanding/accelerating outwards. I > then realized: If all "matter" is expanding/accelerating relative to > each other, would the observer (who is also made of the same > accelerated "matter") notice anything different, except for the > manifestation of gravity. I was truly astonished to find that some of > Mile's mathematical articles, such as the one about the precession of > Mercury's orbit, where he touched on the expansion model > mathematically explored the very concepts I had tried to visualize > geometrically in my head while in the midst of jogging. > > > > I hasten to add that I don't mean to imply that I fully understand a > significant portion of Mile's mathematical analysis concerning his > interpretation of the expansion model. I'm still totally baffled by > Miles's use of the trig function, the tangent (tan0) formula. I > realize the function is used to calculate the curvature (angle) of > space at specified distances in relation to accelerating bodies, but I > don't know why we use the TAN trig function. Still doesn't make any > sense to me. Nevertheless, I'm still plugging away, trying to > comprehend as much as my brain can absorb. > > > > > > COMMENT 2: (Warning: the following commentary is totally metaphysical > in nature.) > > > > Earlier today something within me moved me to make a visual comparison > of Miles Mathis and that of Isaac Newton. When I made side-by-side > comparisons the two individuals feel strikingly similar to me. Even > more striking to me is the fact that Miles appears to be continuing > the work of Newton (and Kepler), including fixing mathematical errors > Isaac might have made in his most famous previous life. Miles also > appears to be clarifying a slew of mathematical mistakes and/or > misconceptions that he claims contemporary professionals in the > sciences continue to make in regards to Newton's original math. > > > > I've found myself wondering if Miles might possibly be a new revised > edition of Newton. If so, it would appear that the revised "Newton" is > rounding out his already well developed mathematical prowess with > enthusiastic "academic" pursuits in the arts and humanities. Looks to > me as if the revised "Newton" is having a hoot of a time, too. I bet > the ladies like him! ;-) He's probably a little bit relieved that > he's NOT the old Newton this time around! Probably doesn't even want > to speculate on such a bizarre possibility either! Why have such an > albatross hanging around one's neck -- specifically being > metaphysically linked to a world renown mathematical genius, a glory > from some past century, particularly when there's so much stuff to > explore in today's world! I could see how such a "distinction" could > constantly get in the way of one's current life's pursuits. Perhaps > Mile's is also pursuing alchemical interests as well, though perhaps > somewhat revised. > > > > For additional info on Miles Mathis' check out his web site: > > http://mileswmathis.com/ > > > > Miles recently published a book on his mathematical research, See > Amazon out at > > http://tinyurl.com/35ba7zr > > Titled: "The UN-DEFINED FIELD and other problems" > > ... the greatest standing errors in physics and mathematics > > > > > > ********************************************** > > > > Final comment. Regardless of my blatantly metaphysical mumbo-jumbo > rant, it is obvious to me that Miles has some interesting things to > say. As Mauro has already pointed out, I also suspect Miles will make > significant contributions, even if his most noted contributions may > not immediately be recognized for the significance that they truly are > within our lifetime. We should also keep in mind that Miles is still a > very young lad, probably still in his 30s. Give him some time and > space to grow, and mature... Just as wine matures, let's see what > Miles comes up with. > > > > Regards > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > www.OrionWorks.com <http://www.OrionWorks.com> > > www.zazzle.com/orionworks <http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks> > > >
