Practical physics

Share this Article

Practical physics

Article - 1 year 4 months ago
electric earth science
north east of Japan, foot of mountain made by discharge

In the 17th century, Descartes insisted on the view of mechanical nature.  Mechanical view of nature, like a mechanical watch that was familiar at the time, thinks that natural phenomena are caused by the relationship between things and things.  In the view of mechanical nature, it was thought that local interaction is a force that works naturally. In fact, Newton's universal gravitation was criticized by scientists in France and Germany because it was a force working between distant substances. Universal gravitation was nonlocal interaction.

Nonlocal interaction can be transmitted instantaneously even between distant substances. Nonlocal interaction requires no medium like space. In modern physics, the propagation of electromagnetic waves, light, gravity is considered space as a medium.   Space is used as a concept to replace nonlocal interaction. However, this space is the concept that relativity is brought from Riemannian geometry. Modern physics treats space as naturally existing existence. When, where, and who proved the existence of space?

Space is a concept that has come to be used in physics without being proved. Gravity is explained as bending of space. However, nobody can bend the space. If we can bend the space, we can generate gravity and antigravity will be possible as well. The reason why gravity can not be controlled is because the space is fictitious. Modern physics has a fundamental mistake.

Newton's gravitation is also strange. It has the same gravity of outer space and gravity on Earth, but it is not proven.  At the end of the 18 th century, Cavendish's experiments are said to have proved that mass produces gravity. However, in the mid-nineteenth century Faraday discovered lead was diamagnetic. Mass does not produce gravity.

Gravity has not been proved yet. Explanation of gravity by relativity theory is explained by the concept of space that is not a thing. If we can explain gravity with things, we should be able to control gravity. Not only space. Wave functions also do not exist. The fact that quantum mechanics seems to be successful is due to the incorporation of classical statistical mechanics. Quantum mechanics can not explain the details of nuclei. If we can explain the atomic mechanism, we should be able to realize low temperature nuclear fusion.

Space is not a thing. Quantum is not a thing. String is not a thing. Mathematics is not a thing. Modern science and physics are far out of the methodology claimed by Descartes. As a critical thinker, against the mainstream science, we must be aware of scientific methodologies. Practical physics is our goal.

Comments

Permalink

Thinking - in human conceptual terms is thinging.
I sense the terms are of the same root.
Growing a local specific consciousness has its necessary stage of development.
Re-opening or re-integrating that focus to the non-local or Infinite is a result of extending object and pattern recognition, to an intuitive recognition in resonance with heart, wholeness or Infinity. (nothing added or taken away).
Space has been used as a symbolic separator of conflicted Self-differntiating mind or local 'disconnect' and dissociation from its own Source Nature.
Seperate minds in separate bodies operate a casting out of inner dissonance in personified archetypes.
The discovery of 'space' as plasma and of plasma as 97% or more of physical expression in our terms is also of an entirely different physics - where impact forces and objects are effects rather than causal, and resonance of self-organising structure operate a recognisable patterning that expresses a one in many as the many in one.
So the 'space or distance or separation' is a filtering construct for the expression of specific perspectives as expressions of and within one 'Infinite' Embrace - because nothing actually leaves or becomes a thing in its self to a self in its self while such experience is unfolded.
If parctical physics is technologism then I ask to what purpose is technologism an extension of?
Does not the purpose logically extend from whatever I think I am? - and alway in relation to an undefinable awareness that 'I' only points to, or derives individuation of, yet can be so easily substituted for by whatever I think I am - which is always an image or model that may serve a symbolic reference but is not itself alive.
I hold the restoration of coherent significance or inherent meaning as a practical result of real questions honestly asked and answered. Our questions are starting points that of course contain already acquired beliefs and definitions. Space was held to be the absence of thing - but in abiding as awareness (that Space in some sense symbolises as the field to its object relations, the conflicted or polarised thinking disorder releases to a subtler quality of resonant recognistion, and 'Communication' is restored that replaces the polarised defence of a split mind set in mutually exclusive polarity.

Until disproved, the theory of dipolar atomic distortions in large toroidal plasmoids that Wal Thornhill is pursuing, holds promise to bring gravity in as a specific subset of the electrical force.