Images taken from "Le Monde" by Renée Descartres, 16XX. Courtesy of Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, gallica.bnf.fr.
Descartes did not know either the properties of laminar flows, nor the law of universal gravitation of Newton, nor the Magnus effect, etc. At the time of Descartes all these discoveries had not yet been made. And after Isaac Newton was not at all convinced that the space was empty, contrary to what is believed. In fact, after the discovery of universal gravitation law, he devoted the rest of his life to trying to understand what the mechanism of gravity was. Not even he believed in a mysterious action at a distance of attraction between the masses of matter, the planets.
But later Marco Todeschini went much further than this with his theory of Space-Dynamics.
Images taken from "The Theory of Appearances - Space-Dynamics and PsychoBioPhysics" by the Engeneer Marco Todeschini, Centro Internazionale di Psicobiofisica, Bergamo 1949. Courtesy of Circolo di PsicoBioFisica Amici di Marco Todeschini. It's impossible to summarize the Theory of Appearances in a few words or in a few concepts: read the book. Todeschini's Theory is not immediately represented what you see in the following movies. The following videos, however, show the reality, but this is not exactly the hidden structure of the physical world in the T.o.A.
Before reading the T.o.A., you can start from here: water is a transparent fluid, liquid, but you perceive its presence in different ways: to the touch, with the eyes, with the ears. Atmospheric air is even more transparent than water, but you still feel its presence, through touch and its pressure, through the things that the air moves, for example the leaves of a tree under the effect of the wind . Finally, according to the Theory of Appaerances there is a very light, fluid substance, a fluid that occupies the whole space, and it is the same space, an incompressible fluid, always in motion, because of its perfect elastic property and impacts of its infinitesimal components and its currents: translatory, roundabouts, oscillatory. The ether postulated by Todeschini is never immobile, it's dynamic like all the universe, absolutely full and infinite, and vacuum does not exist. In fact, as Descartes had already understood, if there was an absolute void between two parts of matter, then these two parts would touch each other, and in the last analysis there could be no vacuum.
In reality the Michelson–Morley experiment demonstrates this: the ether is not immobile. If we consider ether immobile, then it shows that ether does not exist and vacuum - the nothing -, exist!!! But ether is never immobile, because of its perfect elastic property, and because of the law of conservation of momentum.
Have you ever seen billiard balls behave when they are hit by another ball? They are not perfectly elastic, nor are the edges and the green cloth surface of the table. Well, if the table and balls system were perfectly elastic, and if there were no side holes, what would happen? It would happen that the balls would continue to bounce for eternity.
In other words, our senses are very limited and lead us to deception, that is, the appearance of things. On the surface of the Earth, space is not empty, as we have learned, but it is full of atmospheric air, that is, of molecules and atoms. But this matter invisible to our eyes, does not exist on a background that is emptiness, that is, nothingness. Nothing exists only in our mind, it is an abstract concept, which belongs to the world of ideas, that is, emptiness exists only in the spiritual world, not in the physical world, endowed with three dimensions, that is the "res extensa", as defined Descartes, which was not by chance the man who invented the x, y, z axis system to define any point in space, a system that is still used today, indeed, today more than ever in countless practical, scientific applications, mathematical, physical. Does it seem a casual or trivial thing?
Now, I'll tell you this other thing, then I will not tell you anything else. If you are ready now to understand, you can understand. Otherwise you keep your scientific, absolute, dogmatic certainties. (... But I'm wrong, or the science was born to be different from faith and religion?)
The last effort you have to make to begin to understand is that matter is not energy. The word "energy" is a purely mathematical, spiritual concept. As Engineer Marco Todeschini discovered, not exactly a pusher or a pizza chef - no offense for Italian pizza makers, energy does not exist in the physical world, because in the physical world there are only impacts and only shocks between portions of matter, and between the fluid dynamic ether and matter.
Nature does not know the square of the speed of light. The speed is yes, but the square of a speed is untraceable in physical reality. Nature does not use our instruction books, or even our confusing language, mathematical or literary. The famous formula "E = mc2" (the energy is equal to the mass for the speed of the light elevated to the square), does not tell us anything about the true nature of the matter. So we know how much we knew before Einstein and his incredible Theory of Relativity, with all its fabulous paradoxes.
The only thing that tells us that formula is that the nucleus of the atom contains within itself a frightful "energy", or rather, tells us that it contains an incredible amount of motion. If we somehow manage to stop or deviate from their reciprocal motion the components of the atomic nucleus, these start off according to random trajectories, generating impacts on impacts around all the matter that surrounds them. In other words, they start out like crazy chips in all directions with a momentum that is that of their original rotational speed (orbital), or rather their instantaneous tangential velocity, equal to or greater than the speed of light. In other words, we can imagine these spins, atomic systems, which rotate around themselves on an axis of their own, no more and no less as the planets do, but at lower speeds, as the system becomes larger, and more complex.
So, at this point, if matter is not "energy" (because matter is energy only as a mathematical concept, that is, as a physical-mathematical equivalence, in a pure passage from one formula to another), what is matter from the conceptual, our practical point of view, in the reality of nature?
Matter is always the fluid and dynamic ether that permeates the whole universe, because the matter is all those portions of ether fluid dynamic that rotate around their own axis very, very fast, like tiny spins.
To understand each other better. Have you ever seen a jet of high pressure water from a fire pump? Try to get your hand into the jet, you will not succeed. You try to cut with a knife blade a jet of water in rapid movement, you will not succeed. Or: try to go against a propeller that rotates very fast ...
So you can imagine billions and billions of these spinning tops (molecules, atoms, nuclei, electrons, etc.), ever smaller, which rotate at such high speeds that they seem solid, but instead are nothing but parts of this invisible fluid that occupies the whole space of the universe, indeed, it is space itself: "the incompressible weight dynamic fluid space" discovered by the Engineer Marco Todeschini. He also devised and wrote a book to perform precise scientific experiments, decisive for physics ("Esperimenti decisivi per la fisica moderna"). If you're interested, get better information at the Circolo Amici di Todeschini. Otherwise you keep your absolute "scientific" certainties, but it would be better to say ... dogmatic. And that's how we freed ourselves a few centuries from the religious dogmatism that invaded the field of knowledge, to do what? To make us slaves to a new form of dogmatism, the scientific one.
In conclusion: I do not say that the Theory of Appearances is the new Gospel of modern physics. I say: perhaps it is the case of being interested in the Engineer Marco Todeschini. Or not? There is nothing to fear, "because the truth lies in the test benches of universe", as Todeschini himself said, not in the theories of men.