ToeQuest

Equations are more factual than truthful. Truth can never be reduced to mere numbers.2-2=0 is a fact of numbers, but not a truth of real physical entities. Like, 2 bananas- 2 bananas can never be equal to 0. Even if we call the remainder as 0 banana, it gets reduced to absurdity as there is nothing like 0 banana. Those who are cued to the Mest theory will better appreciate this simple aspect of truth. In a physical universe there is nothing like zero. By change of positions or forms, things and objects can never be reduced to zero. The consensus of physicists and mathematician on this particular aspect of the truth has proved unwittingly an unholy nexus against truth. It has led the scientific pursuit of truth to (in) glorious fallacies.

There are descriptive scripts behind all the equations of all the laws of physics. The numbers of those equation as well as the proportional relationships are not complete truths. Those numbers and relations are indicative of truth asking to be understood intellectually.

Let us examine the law of gravitation from this perspective.

Every object of mass in this universe attracts another. It means that such force of attraction is not singularly a function of the mass of one body. It has to do something with the mass of another or of many more mass bodies around it .An individual mass body, that means, doesn’t have its independent existence. The law further says that such force of attraction is directly proportional to the “product of mass’ of the two bodies. Mathematically, the product of the two mass bodies makes some sense. For example, 3 bananas´ 2 bananas= 6 bananas². But while doing such a product of masses in the physical universe where we will get the 6th banana from and what this 6th banana has to do with the two physical mass bodies, one of 3 bananas and the other of 2 bananas. If that is not enough, then can some one explain as to what banana² means in physical universe. As a physical proposition the equation is an absurdity though it might be meaningful for some mathematical calculations. The matter of proportionality is usually fixed by inventing a constant. But that is again what I repeatedly call as backward working for the approximation of truth.

It is true that there is nothing wrong with the equation, F=GMm/R². The gravitational constant here accounts for not only the 6th banana but also something more hidden in R². Going back to the law that says that the gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance (from their centers) between the two bodies. What does that really mean? To me, it means that the force is also a function not really of the distance but of the square of the distance, meaning the ‘two-dimensional space area between the bodies’. The area might be equal to the square of the distance but it is more likely to be actually elliptical as evident from the orbits of the planets.

Now putting the pieces of the jigsaw together, we get more or less a functional picture of this ‘attractive’ relationship between the mass bodies. It points to the fact that the mass of the bodies has an intricate relationship with the space-time (two dimensional space between them). The individual mass of various objects and the space-time around them are not independent of each other. Those are conjoined to make a continuous Mest. In that mest the force/energy (e) has a direct relationship with the mass (m) and an inverse relationship with the space-time (st) In mest theory, the law of gravitation shall be- eαm/st.

This equation comes from a configurational aspect of mest and points out the relationship of mest components. Extrapolating that to the famous relativity equation E =mc², we get an inverse relationship between velocity square with space-time (c²=1/st). It shows that the change in velocity (acceleration) also changes and destabilizes the mest of a body. The state of rest or uniform motion keeps the mest constant. It is also applicable to the second law of motion. This relationship is perhaps the mother of all equations we have deduced from various laws of physics. It also breaks the impasse and shows a possibility of gravity coming into the line of the rest of three forces.

In fact it will be a pure analytical exercise to break mest into independent mass bodies and discover a force quotient that binds those with one another and with the space-time around them. That force, as we know, is perhaps not the force that binds one molecule with another in various states of matter. But it is not certainly also a force of mysterious attraction between bodies of mass. It is a force that binds the mass and space together making really the mest of them. There is nothing like an attractive force such as gravity.

We need to delve more into the real script behind the mathematical façade of the equation. The gravitation deep down is a story of overlapping mest of the bodies in spite of the fact that it has some relation of proportionality with their solid mass and the distance from centers. The distance from center to center itself establishes the fact that there is continuous (mestial) relationship.

All the mass bodies in this universe tend to remain at rest or in a state of uniform motion because of the stabilized mest. The universe as explained in one of my articles (Weightless Universe) thus remains weightless.

The forced motion causes weight by creating a temporary disturbance in the stabilized mest. That is like throwing a stone in the air from the surface of earth. Mest of the earth so disturbed, perforce, tends to stabilize itself sending the stone down to its weightless position.
It is just like lifting an invisible space cover at one point by application of force, which is not enough to set the object in a state of uniform motion. In the latter case, the object would be orbiting around the earth with a uniform velocity. Like our moon that was once thrown so by the centrifugal force, in the early stages when the mest was yet to stabilize in this region of the universe.

We are just aware of three states of matter-solid, liquid and gas. The states of matter more solid than solids and more thinner than gases are probably there but not in our known part of the universe. The Universe and the Mind in their mutual interaction felt no need for us to know more than required for existence of life, (refer my article- Origin of Life). Black holes represent such state of matter and as to our scientific guesstimates those are much more solid. So solid that those don’t occupy any space and thus cause holes in the space. Like a hole in the wall, a small area where the wall doesn’t exist. Similarly space doesn’t exist where there are black holes. If we pass through such a hole we will cross the space area of this universe landing either out of the universe or in some other universe. A complete void is another impossible assumption to know according to Mest theory, as there is no independent spacetime. That state of mest, without matter (mass/energy) is impossible as space is born with the matter. The universe has not happened in an empty space, vacuum or void whatever we may call that.

Any part of the universe, owing to its weightlessness, resists motion. Any movement created in any medium solid, liquid or gaseous finally comes to halt because of the resistance of mest against forced motion. That resistance is having a relation with the mest of the space wherein the movement happens. The mest of earth in a solid medium will put maximum resistance whereas in a rare medium like air it will be minimum.
The near about relation of this force with the masses of the two bodies under consideration doesn’t validate the existence of an independent force called gravity. The concentration of mest (maximum of mass and energy component) of a solid mass body moving in thinner mest of the spacetime region makes the body to go back to the solid mest to find a position of weightlessness.

We are in an envelope of earth-mest not just on the surface of earth.
Like probable position of a particle can be assessed by quantization, in a quantized mest lies the ultimate truth hidden, probably!