Here is the conclusion of a study I have done about the “Discourse of the method” by Descartes, which can be useful in order to understand my work:
In order to conclude, I have to specify that the Cartesian logic, being applied among others to mathematics and physics/chemistry, we can find in the education by which we are abided some murky logics which could easily make us call all what we have learned in question, as the complex numbers which have a quite unusual consideration of the square root relatively to the negative numbers ; as well to consider electron as negative energy seems quite heretical because God (about God in science see the link at the beginning of the last post) is according with existence and it is not really possible to admit that something is present after nothingness. Nonetheless by a good reflection these notions can be enlightened. But moreover though the notion of lack is a fact, the concept of the negative energy and the anti-particles seems to me anyway quite doubtful (even if not so much heretical), and the system of the Cartesian gravity which follows the logic of the flame which is going up seems to me at least as neat, knowing on the top of that, that the theory of the skies is well confirmed by observing the rings of Saturn and that the motion in whirl, dear to Descartes, looks like the one drawn by the arms of galaxies. The relative void can be supposed. But if we want to put it at the center of attraction, why for instance could it not fill by volcanoes after they have spit? Because in this case there is not apparently any anti-return valve like in the blood vessels. And even if this could be possible the value of the attraction should decrease because the vacuum should tend to be filled through time. Furthermore the theory defended by Descartes, of which he did discuss with Blaise Pascal, about mercury(1) , has been confirmed by the work of Mr. Torricelli, a pupil of Galileo Galilei, who has rejected the theory of void used by his master about the functioning of pumps, what did lead him to the concept of the atmospheric pressure ; and this is the induction of this result which supports well the rest of the author ‘s theory against the one of vacuum. Nevertheless, it is possible to notice in the Galileo Galilei’s letter to Fulgenzio Micanzio of the 19th of December 1634 that even him did possess another explanation than the one of vacuum. In order to go further, despite the irregularity of the gravimetric geoids, it is possible to add the fact that the atmosphere presents a high resistance and temperature at the periphery of some layers ; what is observed while the rockets are going out, and is not due to the density of the particles because otherwise they should go closer to the planet Earth, but here it seems that we are in the presence of particles like the ones of the second element described in “The World”, which are very light, and thus produce a pressure by following a rule close to the theorem of Archimedes, which applies here vertically from the bottom toward the top because the particles which are light are going toward the top contrary to the molecules of water which are going toward the bottom, and the force is not equal to the weight of moved fluid, but depends on its volume. Finally in order to sustain the fact that when there is an error somewhere the whole is not inevitably one (about the work of Descartes), we can notice that Aristotle as well was rejecting the absolute vacuum, what did not stop Descartes doing it (he was not following Aristotle).
(1) : See the letter to the father Mersenne of the 13th of December 1647.