Criticism of gravity by Newton

  In order to sustain my theory about gravity (see my work in physics by making a click on October 2009, in 2009 on the right in the “blog archive”, especially the article 9):


“Conjectures and refutations”, chapter 3, part 3, by Karl R. Popper



About Newton:



… This explains that he did very deeply feel the unfinished character of his theory, also the necessity to consider gravity. “That Gravity, writes Newton (See the letter to Richard Bentley, 25th of February 1692-3 (so 1693); see also the letter of the 17th of January.), is innate, inherent and essential in matter, in such a way that a body can act on an other at a distance […] is for me a so huge absurdity that I believe that a person a minimum competent in philosophy will never can fall in this error.”



A bit further:



“Nonetheless, Newton was an essentialist. He did devote some important efforts in order to search for an ultimate explanation for gravity which could be acceptable by trying to deduce the law of the attraction from the hypothesis of a mechanical thrust, only type of causal action admitted by Descartes because the only one which can be explained by the essential propriety of all bodies, extent. But he did not succeed in it. And we can be sure that if he did succeed, he should have considered that his problem did receive its final solution and that he did find the ultimate explanation of gravity…”

_

But this is true that to think about different ways to explain gravity can help to have some good ideas about other things, even if what is considered is not the final solution for gravity.

A bit more about my work

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.

Conclusion for my theories (not for the blog)

To read before :

http://eternal-cartesian.blogspot.com/2009/08/heisenberg-and-god.html


In order to conclude it is good to notice that the theory as an intellectual construction which for a part is not depending on some experiences and/or experiments makes look at the world in a different manner and thus motivates to develop some physical inventions which make evolve our way of life, by assuring us a power suitable for bringing us the peace as much as our theories are the best ones; according to what it is obviously better to search because it is not by waiting that some new ideas come to confront our five senses that we will be protected; it is better to go methodically so intelligently, and if possible without going too far from the common way of thinking, to the research of these ideas, which at the beginning will catalyze at least our interpretation; thus we can remark that the theory according to which the Sun is the center of our planetary system had been seriously considered by the mind of Aristarchus of Samos and even more certainly by the one of Copernicus, before the telescope could bring enough sensual proofs to the rest of the world by the intermediate of Galileo Galilei, according to what the sensual proof is not indispensable to the reality, even if it confirms this reality and that it is better not to take too much risks. The error remains true for the human thought but at least the ones that we have realized become as much marks in order to show us the way of the truth. Also in order to judge a work it is better to know it totally, after it is better to know how to make allowances and not to condemn the totality while only a part is wrong [1], what discourages to do any hypothesis, nevertheless it is mainly like this that the humanity is evolving, from this possibility to progress blindly toward the divine truths. Obviously this submits us to error, but it is better to do some and to progress than not to do any and to remain farther from God, whereas we want to know It the most possible, as is confirming the worships which have been developed in the different civilizations and as well tribes; on the top of that to include this infinite consideration in our projects clings us stronger to life, and reinforces even our familial and social projects, because to have the ambition to know what is not finishing and is reinforcing us always, motivates us to progress directly or out of the intermediate of some others more qualified in order to discover things, and to whom it is better to give the opportunity to think in the best conditions possible.

[1] Update 04/08/2011: For the scientific part of my work, what is present should be enough for the time being, and until now the corrections are the effect of my own judgment, my work did then resist critics.

Article 10

Water stems from the equilibrium of the energetic potential of stars which forms the different atoms and molecules, and in a usual way we can remark its gaseous condensable release during some combustions and mainly the one stemmed from volcanoes. Also if we can observe its presence on the Earth it is due to the atmosphere, and to the gravity and the inertia which are in it and which retain water; thus it is possible to find it in three different forms which are vapor (clouds…), liquid (rains, lacks, rivers, seas…), and ice (snow, hail, ice-floe…). About the liquid streams they have in part the same causes than winds applied to the liquid element and can be influenced by them, also tidal waves stem from volcanic activities and from the displacements of plates, where there is some thermal phenomenons but as well wave ones(1); and the variations of relief have to be considered for the fluvial flows.
Otherwise we can think that the motion in tides should come from an interaction between the terrestrial sky and the one of the Moon, as a result of what for a first hypothesis we could pose (within the framework of the hypothesis of Descartes about this subject (see The World))…

The rest of this article has been modified and will not be published here, in order to protect it. (If you want to read it, see here: 

https://eternal-cartesian.blogspot.com/2022/07/you-can-read-it-like-book-good-for-mind.html  )

(1): Also some enough powerful hurricanes can be accompanied by a groundswell of a considerable height.

Article 9 last part

But there is something left to explain in order this should be really logical, because at a same altitude in the closest layer to the soil the gravity is increasing by going from the equator toward the North Pole, although this is not the same thing by going toward the South Pole (there are more irregularities); as well it can seem strange that the gravity decreases when the altitude increases in this same layer, while the heaviest gases, as the CO2, which are then the closest to the soil have a greater capacity to carry as the liquid water compared with air, what should propose the opposite phenomenon (if we refer to the conditions of the experiment of von Jolly). Thus a new factor should be considered which is the composition of the soil, and here we can consider a black matter having an attractive power, which is magnetite or the mineral magnet, and which as its name indicates forms a magnetic field(1) by creating a flow with the particles of the two first secondary elements and especially the smallest ones; also the flow that they should form in this case should be quite weak what is proved by compasses, and should not create appreciably any warmth because especially the small particles of the second secondary element should participate in it(2), but it should increase all the same the quantity of the particles serving to the gravity in the geographical areas where should be found some magnetite with a higher concentration, by considering that it is possible to find a little of it everywhere in the crust(3); what should explain its variations at the level of the soil.
Besides this system of gravity should be propitious to explain the phenomenon of Northern Lights, because when the concentration of the particles of the first secondary element should be high enough(2), it should be normal that some luminous phenomenons should be produced; what should happen more easily near the magnetic North Pole for the reason that these particles should be more concentrated because of the magnetic field (more magnetite which orientates the magnetic field in some other places)(1).

(1): As well the motion under the terrestrial crust of the mass in fusion could produce a current being able to participate in the magnetic field (see theory of the dynamo effect). \ (2): See : http://eternal-cartesian.blogspot.com/2009/09/article-2.html \ (3): Considering that there is always a possible production of magnetite under the crust.

Update 13/04/2011: Otherwise about the particles as those of a magnetic field in the process of gravity, it is possible to consult the case of the mouse in magnetic levitation with a study of the NASA in relation with gravity (or of the frog by A. Geim (Nobel prize laureate) et M. Berry), here the magnetic field is enough higher than the radiation of the Earth (which is not local), but as well than the gravity, what gives the effect of a local thrust on a living being done by some particles of the same type as those considered here for gravity, what is close to the optical tweezers relatively to small things (see end of the article 6 about magnet). Lastly the particles considered here for the general magnetic field of the Earth come from a quite weak magnetic field and should intervene by the dispersion of the particles participating in the magnetic field (being free for the participation in the gravity), and possibly by thrust, this rather at the poles, because the magnetic field is vertical at the poles (so thrust toward the top or the bottom in the field).

  Lastly for the credibility of black holes, it is possible to read this: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101214/full/468876a.html 

 

Update 06/01/12:

  About the Cavendish experiment, it is done with some masses of lead; but considering my theory for magnet (see article 6), it is better to not omit the emissions of atoms and the organization of it, thus even if lead is not reacting like iron to the emission of the flow of a magnet, the organization of its own one, is not going against the fact that it can have an interaction which is particular, with a different correspondence between the pores (see article 7). Thus the interaction between the spheres of lead should not be the result of the attraction coming from the universal gravitation, but of a particular force field (which is not bizarre).

Update 23/03/12: No string balls and still no black holes produced by the LHC, according to the results of 2011 (which is not good for the current theory of gravity). See this publication: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.6396.pdf

Update 18/03/13: Searches for large extra dimensions, gravitons, microscopic black holes, long-lived particles, dark matter, and leptoquarks are presented in the report at the following address. No sign of these new physics phenomena has been observed so far.

  Also I want to make notice that my work is not concerned with what is considered in this report (currently everything is going well for it), for example about the Long-Lived Neutral Particles and it is possible to check it if you want by following the references in this document.

Report: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1500560?ln=en

   Otherwise there is also a publication about the lack of production of string balls and black holes at the LHC, following the data of 2012 and with a better sensitivity than in 2011. See this document: http://cds.cern.ch/record/1460444?ln=en