So, I'm desperately trying to get something of some value out of Mathis' work, (assuming his objective is to create an alternative set of principles), but ….
.. Steven … from your previous post, it seems that he violates his own principle foundations in his subsequent statements. That is, his own alternative version of all this is, in itself, not even internally consistent.
Throughout his work, he refers to his other 'proofs' to build upon his previous work, so I can only explain his work as some kind of attempt at rebuilding dynamic classical physics from the ground up. To do this, I would've thought you have to be,
at the very least, consistent and honest to yourself, or the foundations you lay out to start with ..??
I'm desperately searching for something of value in Mathis' work apart from being kind of like a poorly made physics test … that can even be disproven using string !!
Does anyone have any suggestions .??… just so I can restore some of my, (perhaps), misplaced trust in human beings ?
It seems that even Alex has abandoned me in my 'quest' to get where this guy is coming from ...
Cheers