Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Daniel Rocha: on 4/6/17 at 4:13am UTC, wrote Dear Boris, I did not understand very well the physics part, because of...

Don Limuti: on 4/5/17 at 12:31pm UTC, wrote Boris, I found your essay very interesting, enough so, that I did some...

Paul Butler: on 4/5/17 at 3:10am UTC, wrote Dear Dizhechko, We see many things in somewhat similar ways. You see...

Robert Groess: on 4/3/17 at 21:27pm UTC, wrote Dear Boris Dizhechko, Thank you for pointing out your essay on my forum...

Christian Corda: on 4/3/17 at 9:03am UTC, wrote Dear Dizhechko Boris, As I told you in my Essay page, I have read your...

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/3/17 at 2:36am UTC, wrote Dear Dizhechko Thank you for your comments on my page - I will re-read...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/1/17 at 17:11pm UTC, wrote Paul, you were surprised by my assertion that space is the body of God....

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 3/30/17 at 9:37am UTC, wrote Уважаемый Дэвид! Я понял из вашего эссе,...


Cristinel Stoica: "Dear Lorraine, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but QBism gives the humans..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Steven Andresen: "I note your reservations. What I propose doesn’t change the observations..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "Lorraine, did you read "Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 22, 2017 @ 03:14..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Steven, I can only speak for myself. I am uncertain of my ability to..." in Alternative Models of...

sridattadev kancharla: "Dear All, Using Imaginary part of s in the e power yields correct..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

sridattadev kancharla: "Dear All, I am using Sign function to determine the direction of..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Cohen Geoffrey: "The origin of life on planet Earth A "cosmic cloud" falls from infinite..." in Biological Creativity

Georgina Woodward: "In the example of a spinning ball that was given it should be assumed that..." in The Reality of the...

click titles to read articles

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

July 23, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: The way of the materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 20:21 GMT
Essay Abstract

This phenomenon as believed New Cartesian Physic can to name the levitation which occurs as it seems to people in the result of supernatural action of psychic power or spiritual energy. Is based on Space-matter equivalence it shows that there is nothing supernatural in levitation, because on the law of mass-energy equivalence of the body is the accumulation of energy, not matter. Space is matter, matter is space. No space – no matter and no matter - no space. The matter moves, consequently, the space moves. Shift space in one place causing it to shift in another place, forming a circular movement of the space. The energy of the circular motion space represents a mass. Thanks to this energy the mass moves into space. Assuming that in the real world there is nothing but a moving space, the activities of our brain can be represented as follows that the image of the real world it creates does not in itself, but in the physical space around them, changing the structure of its movement. Creating a mental image, the brain changes the structure of the movement space, so that the body was moving in the direction that he specifies. On the basis of the mass-energy equivalence physic concludes that the surface of each particles of the entire Universe operates; the flow of force is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light, which is balanced by the flow of the centrifugal force of rotation of the space inside the corpuscle. In case of violation of the balance of the corpuscle is moving (levitating) in the direction in which it is violated. Thus, our brain, creating a mental image, changes the structure of equilibrium around the molecules of our body so that it acted to achieve the goal.

Author Bio

Dizhechko Boris Semyonowich Lenin prospect 85, Apartment 16, City of Sterlitamak, Bashkortostan, Russia The specialist on measuring devices.. The independent Investigator on fundamental questions of physics Education higher Employment history - 40 years I am an independent Investigator. For many years I convince scientists, that the space is identical to a matter and that it moves. No matter there is no space. And only the ordinary consciousness does not allow us to observe it as a matter as it is easier to it to think, that it lives in an empty space

Download Essay PDF File

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 01:15 GMT
Paranormal and supernatural phenomena are currently beyond the scope of official science. However, the evidence about these phenomena is, as in time past, so in the present and, obviously, will be in the future. The question arises - Why modern physics eschews them? That she bothers to acknowledge their existence?

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 11:46 GMT
Modern physics does not study the paranormal and supernatural phenomena, as it believes that the body surface is a boundary that separates it from other bodies and so between them there is no other communication as soon as through contact or electromagnetic radiation. Let's not talk about gravity, as modern physics knows nothing about its nature and also relates to a supernatural phenomenon.

New Cartesian Physic, the base of which lies the identity of space and matter, asserts that equal volumes of the body and the physical vacuum contain the same amount of matter, that space and matter are the same. Thus, the body created out of space and it connects them. In addition, she argues that space is moving relative to itself, and this movement brings all that is observed by us in it, including what we call the paranormal and the supernatural, as another entity in addition to space for us in the real world. The physical space in question in a New Cartesian Physic is different from geometrical space studied in mathematics. New Cartesian Physic claims that in physical space exists the pressure under which the body store energy determined by the formula of mass-energy equivalence. The constancy of this pressure throughout the Universe is set by the movement of the space. A space moved there, where its pressure falls.

At the heart of our thinking lies the ability of the brain to create mental images in the surrounding space, adequately reflecting what is happening in the real world phenomena.

Before performing any action we should imagine a mental image of that action and it’s a Goal

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 17:11 GMT
Paul, you were surprised by my assertion that space is the body of God. Here's my statement: "our eyes and the eyes of all living creatures God looks at Himself". The unity of the world in the unity of God, say the theologians. The unity of the world in the unity of matter – say the materialists. New Cartesian Physic claims that the unity of the world in the identity space, as the body of the Lord God that doeth wonders, and matter. That space is the body of the Lord God, people guess for a long time and therefore the question "Where is God?" they say, "God is in heaven."

Nature abhors a vacuum – so said the ancient philosophers. The wall closes instantly, if we will allow God, says Descartes, somewhere in an extraordinary way to form the void. Descartes did not know that the greatest speed is the speed of light and so today we say that in this case the walls of the voids are closed at the speed of light. Therefore, the void where space is moving at the speed of light.

The vortex is an unstable structure. Make it sustainable it is necessary that his side was locked. For example, the tornado lower end is locked in the surface of the Earth. The vortex will be stable if his side pinched, and he will be Thor. Boca vortex locked, if it is, as you say, becomes a three-dimensional movement due to its rotation.

Paul N Butler replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 03:10 GMT
Dear Dizhechko,

We see many things in somewhat similar ways. You see space as God’s body. After looking at the universe and seeing that it is made to be a temporary structure that contains entropy which will cause it to ultimately end, it does not make sense to me that God would not make it to exist without end if he intended it to be his body, so that he could live in it endlessly. It...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 23:28 GMT
Dear Boris Semyonovich,

Your style is clear and simple, even for those who have little understanding of English, as I do. I suggest numerating the formulas. In the first formula appears e then q1, q2 and epsilon then ke, I do not understand.

You say: Note that if you reduce the radius to zero speed grows to infinity. This problem is solved by Ruđer Bošković, in short there are no penetration. Attraction becomes Repulsion and there is no infinite speed.

That is nice: Wave - particle duality is explained by the fact that space is matter and matter is space.

Schwarzschild radius is actually half that radius. I do not understand what is M and mo. Please clarify.

Best regards,

Branko Zivlak

report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 09:34 GMT
Dear Branko!

Thank you for the nickname you gave me: "Semyonovich" in your reference.

My name is Boris Dizhechko. My English is no, I use the electronic translator.

An essay is a literary genre, not a research report. According to the proposed topic, I had to show how the mathematical formulas define my purpose and intention in life. I may be wrong, as the majority of participants went beyond this genre. Wrong, perhaps, in the fact that I tied the New Cartesian physics with the paranormal and supernatural, as it did not attract the attention of others.

I respect Balkovec, however, he attracted and repelled particles, but I consider the movement of space inside of the corpuscle, where it spreads as a wave of Compton.

Half of the Schwarzschild radius occurs when considering the energy leaving the black hole, I consider the radius of the orbit, where the space is moving at the speed of light, i.e. equal to the first cosmic velocity

Now a question for you as a meteorologist. This winter we are constantly blowing South wind. I believe that when the summer axis of the Earth turns to the Sun, and the movement of air masses will remain in the same orbits, we will often blowing North wind. Am I right or not?

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko.

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 07:00 GMT
Dear Semyonovich,

Dzrasti !

Your observations are excellent,

1. Throughout his life, starting with the first steps, a person accumulates in the subconscious mental images, able to control his organs on the principle of "if this, then that." These images of the action, emerging from the subconscious to consciousness force the person to perform certain actions and define his...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 15:28 GMT
Dear SNP. Gupta!

The dynamic model agrees well with the concept of moving space-matter. I am a materialist and so I say that space is matter. All visible body, the planets, the stars are benchmarks that indicate the movement of the space. Physical space that moves, should be distinguished from a fixed geometric space.

You are correct; everybody samples the world and accumulates images through his senses. May be visual, may be by touch or taste. All these images are accumulated in brain as experience images... Mind acts on these images. Mathematical laws are formed by mind by comparing some of these relevant images. Then these math laws tested and later will be given out to the world. What do you say?

Here you understood me correctly. I said only that in the creation of a mental image involves not only the molecules of the brain, but the space between them that comes out and is able to influence both our actions, and on the space of other bodies.

Sorry, I do not know English and use online translator, so it's hard for me to discuss.

I wish you success!

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Отправить перевод

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 12:27 GMT
Dear Boris,

Very interesting analysis in the spirit of radical Cartesian doubt and ideas to help find a way out of the modern crisis of understanding in fundamental science. Indeed, "WorldUnderstanding - SpaceUnderstanding". (Pavel Florensky) Necessary to search a reliable knowledge base with the conscious use of the competing gnoseological paradigms. The whole history of basic science and the current crisis confirms this necessity.

Good luck in the contest!

Yours faithfully,


report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 07:13 GMT
Vladimir! The crisis is that we all speak different languages about one and the same – everyone is trying to invent a language and believe in him.


Dizhechko Boris

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 04:50 GMT
Thank you fore your post on my essay. Here are also you gave a Nice reply

Best wishes to your essay...


report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 10:16 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

Thank you for the explanations…. It is ok.Thank you for your posts on my essay.

Thank you for the fast replies and Blessings. The translator is not very good. But I got the central idea.

Best Wishes for your essay


report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 22:35 GMT

This is a very interesting essay. I'm not sure I would have included the speculation regarding psychic ability, but I see the connection between your form of the Lorentz Transform and what I present as a hypothesis in Equation 2 of my essay.

One of the considerations for quaternions is that they allow for space to be rotated as desired. I have tried to think of what this might mean on the microscopic scale. You have given something very serious to think about.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 01:35 GMT
Gary, I believe that we should not focus on the adoption of the concept of space-time. In New Cartesian Physic space rotates in the micro and in the macro scale. If you're using quaternions will show the rotation of the space – it will be perfect!

Success to you!

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko.

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 06:10 GMT

There is a Physicist whose work might interest you. His name is Milo Wolff. He died roughly a year ago. His work focused upon a scalar solution to the spherical wave equation. His work is generally called the Wave Structure of Matter.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 20:31 GMT

Miles Wolff is worthy of respect. However, he did not make a radical step towards recognizing the identity of space and matter, the first which recognized Descartes. Waves of space there are, however, more important than the vortex space.

Cartesian Physic claims that the space rotates, the speed of its movement in the center of the vortex reaches the speed of light and due to time dilation its nucleus becomes stable. That is the model of corpuscle. If you can show it with quaternions, it will be greatest achievement for the New Cartesian Physic. I have appreciated your essay.

Success to you!

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Richard J Benish wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 22:38 GMT
Dr. Semyonovich,

I think your idea concerning the interdependence of matter and space and its implication that the continuum is always in motion may be onto something.

My essay, Rethinking the Universe, argues that the interdependence extends to time, and is incessantly manifest as gravity. Even your hypothesis seems to imply (as mine certainly does) that matter-space interdependence means the average density of the Universe is constant.

Most importantly, the model I've proposed can be tested with a simple, feasible experiment. I hope you find it to be of interest.

Richard Benish

report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 08:23 GMT
Dear, Richard Boenisch!

In the real world there are only two main forces – centrifugal force of rotation in the corpuscle and the pressure force of the Universe to the corpuscle, other forces come from these forces. The force of gravity is what remains from the pressure forces of the Universe at a macroscopic distance from the corpuscles, combined again by the pressure force of the Universe, in the body.

You are right in that matter-space interdependence means that the average density of the Universe remains constant. However, to the average density of the Universe remains constant, the space-matter has to be constantly moving and fill the voids.

Your model it is necessary to organize a separate discussion to be of interest to experimenters or she should explain the known very significant phenomenon

I wish you success!

Dizhechko Boris

William B Goodwin wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 16:06 GMT
Boris Dizhechko,

The imagination and ideas of the brain are very important as you have noted in my essay.

I thought you may be also be interested to read the essay of Christoper Fiorillo who discusses meaningful information and says that even particles have information, although particle information is very limited. I also think you may enjoy a book on Amazon Kindle by Grey House titled “Making Waves”.

I had trouble following some of your formulas as your text describing the formula was different than the formula itself. The translation from Russian to English may have caused this confusion.

Your name appears in FQXi as Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich, so it was an difficult to find your essay. You mentioned a rating of my essay, however, it has not appeared.

William Goodwin

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rodin wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 21:00 GMT
Dear Boris Semyonovich!

Your approach to an explanation of the space and the matter is very close and clear to me, for example conception of the mass, but some positions I treat differently.

I don’t consider that the space moves. The geometry or, more precisely, topology of the space underlies the movement laws. Movement is the wavy disturbance transferred in space as is longitudinal with a velocity of light (massless radiation), and in the form of corpuscles (closed disturbed chains) possessing with mass which transfer speed in space is constant and equal to two thirds of velocity of light. This conservation law defines dynamics of all interactions. Thus in my statement the space is a material basis (scalar proto-medium) at which disturbance the corpuscular matter (substance) is formed. The substance moves in space with constant speed. Depending on energy change the length of a wave of a wave fragmentation of substance in space changes only. Movement occurs just in a space, not concerning of a space. From this point of view your thesis «the Space is a matter, the matter is a space» is certainly true.

Of course, your work deserves an appreciation.

Best regards,

Vladimir A. Rodin

report post as inappropriate

George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 11:55 GMT
Dear Boris!

I am very grateful to your attention to my work and your willingness to support me. I downloaded your work and began to study it. And it seems to me that we are striving for a largely common goal.

1. You note, for example, that you explained the essence of the Lorentz transformation in the Cartesian coordinate system - this is extremely interesting to me, because I also tried to do the same, though, somewhat differently (see in Ref. [3]).

2. You also talk about the principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg, which is also an intriguing topic for me.

3. The problem of gravity, and the task of accurately assessing Einstein's legacy, are also very close to me questions.

4. On your results on the interpretation of paranormal phenomena, however, I can not say anything definite, because I have not dealt with these problems yet. But, I'm sure that I can find there valuable approaches for me, in the near future. If questions arise, I think you will help!

So, for this preliminary inspection, I can only welcome your work and definitely support you!

With good wishes,

report post as inappropriate

Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 09:38 GMT
Here is my requested reader response, Boris ! Science has deviated from the logos (memra)of divine vibrations, i.e. the destruction of creation coninues, because there is no healthy balance between a science 'for economic production/human consumption' and a 'science for life'. Concerning new Cartesian physics, I have been reading your 2 scientific articles in the I-Net. Good work.In my opinion, the best testing field for your approach is the human body and medical science. I am in agreement with your physical conclusion that the living human body is more than matter (space) and energy (motion), i.e. cellular consciousness is scientifically very probable which implies the method of integrative healing. The aging of the cellular body may be a direct consequence of disconnecting human consciousness from the logos.Good luck: stephen

report post as inappropriate

David Brown wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 17:45 GMT
Dear Boris Dizhechko: From your essay, "Wave-particle duality is explained by the fact that space is matter and matter is space." If space is matter and matter is space, then is there some way of explaining square-root(mass) as area?

Koide formula,

Формула Коидэ,

— D. Brown

report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 05:51 GMT
David, thank you for your question.

If you believe that mass is the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscle, the square root of the mass would mean the flux of the vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the line lying on the surface of the corpuscle. The number of 2/3 comes from the fact that the surface has two dimensions, a line one dimension and only exists in space of three dimensions.

I wish you success!

Dizhechko Boris

Al Schneider wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 00:51 GMT
After reading many other entries in this contest and the few responses to my entry, I think something has been missed in my entry.

A point of the little story of the two physics students was to highlight a significant point. They did not see the reality of the situation with the penny. They concluded with their own idea of what happened.

The point is that is that our ability to intend and control our future may well be dependent on something else and we deceive ourselves in seeing the reality of the situation. In other words, "We don't understand anything yet and deceive ourselves thinking we are conscious."

report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 06:52 GMT
Wiemy, al Schneider, I have no way to force you to believe in the identity of space and matter as there is ordinary consciousness and the scientific consciousness. Ordinary consciousness is used to look at space as an empty space, it's easier for him to live. Scientific consciousness to explain certain phenomena, it is necessary to fill the space fields, physical vacuum, dark matter, etc. I say Why do it? We have a space that is matter, and the rest is its condition. It helped me, for example, find the pressure force on particles of the Universe. All movements in the real world occur under the influence of this pressure. The impact of this knowledge on our future – don't know. Perhaps everyday, our minds will not notice New Cartesian Physic and will continue to live, as it exists now.

"I wish you doze off in the dark!" - so said one of our poet.

Dizhechko Boris

Paul N Butler wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 19:03 GMT
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich’s comment to me on my paper’s page:

Dear Paul N Butler!

I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic

I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it.

If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better.

I wish to see your criticism on...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 09:40 GMT
Dear Paul N Butler!

Thank you for enlightening me about the Holy Trinity. You explained the concept of moving space-matter in the language of the Holy Scriptures. I'm not trying because of their sins, to preach the Word of God, as not worthy to do it. However, I wish to explore the moves of God that create our world.

The principle of Heisenberg in New Cartesian Physic indicates the strength of space-eaterie in an infinitely small point and the softness of large areas, which allows them to take with them in our world.

All the best,

Dizhechko Boris

Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 23:31 GMT
Dear Dizhechko,

You are wise to understand that you are not worthy to preach the Word of God because you have also sinned. We are all in that condition, which is why God had his Son Jesus Christ (the Word of God) live a sinless life as a man in this world and then offer himself up to die for us, so that we could receive him as our Lord and Savior and ask God to forgive our sins in his name...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 23:40 GMT
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich’s comment on my paper’s page;


Sometimes I start to believe that space is the body of God, which contains the beginning of everything that is happening in the world. I agree with you that the person imagines that he is the smartest. In fact, he received from God through the Word only a little part from the fact that it is available. A man not...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Victor Usack wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 04:32 GMT

Your wording is awkward to my English.

You begin with what I consider to be the most insightful verse in the bible. I note here the equivalence of mind (word, symbol, concept…) and the reality of God. The word was with God and the word was God. Your approach to one of the most fundamental distinctions of space – matter is fascinating. Your distinction between human and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 05:18 GMT

Thank you very much for the words of support my essay New Cartesian Physic , the basis of which the identity of space and matter that move. Physical space exists in the usual Euclidean sense, only in an infinitely small size.

The place where we are infinitely small compared to the whole Universe and so it is Euclidean. If you take the whole picture of the Universe that we see, it is curved in the past. Need minutes to get the signal from the moon reached the Earth, from the Sun days, from stars years. The universe has no end or edge, as the movement makes it closed.

I hope that the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes ever become the criterion for checking the knowledge of scientists.

All the best to you!


Francis Duane Moore wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 15:12 GMT
Boris. Thanks for your comment of My paper. If space and matter become each other when motion is present , Then as a geometrical construct the planes of influence immerse into each other. I do appreciate your representations.Thanks again Francis Duane Moore

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 17:11 GMT

Good essay, with an interesting and perfectly reasonable hypothesis with which I happen to mostly agree, (my 'Much Ado about Nothing' essay a few years ago agreed the stupidity of space as 'nothing'!)

Now we have so much dark energy, and the fermion pairs of 'condensed matter' are understood to condense by the extra spin state of the Higgs mechanism, most doctrine STILL can't rationlise space as anything but empty.

I agree if it condenses as 'matter' then it must be of the same stuff, just with smaller spin states so matter would be a 'phase transition'. And yes of course there must then be relative states of motion However as we don't suggest water vapour is 'the same' as water surely we must be able to utilise language to distinguish. Do you agree? i.e. One difference I've found is that EM energy couples with condensed matter but not with the smaller states.

One day of course we may far better understand, and some researcher will look back 200yrs and say Wow! some back then knew what was going on!

On levitation; even when the much respected electrical engineering professor Eric Laithewaite in a Royal Institution Christmas lecture showed us effective levitation from gyroscopes and pointed out physics has 'missed something', the response it got was physicists demanding his university (Imperial) got rid of him! They were slapped back for a change!

Well done, and keep building the evidence.


report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 15:29 GMT
Piter, pundits began understanding the world by analysis. They are abstracted from the objects their properties and began to assert that they exist independently. Such is the fate of the space, which was an attribute of matter. Assume that geometrical space and physical space are two different concepts. Physical space has a pressure and it moves. We can say that we it space and have it boiling "bubbles".

About levitation once showed on our television. One psychic from Israel was removed from the lead glasses, put them on the floor and a distance of movement of the fingers caused them to roll over. It is obvious that he has the ability to move the space that we do not see. If we are out of space, it should contact with the surrounding. We were not taught to manage it, so this ability in us has not developed, but there are people who have realized it in myself and not let it fade away.

I wish you success!


Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 18:55 GMT

I've just posted the below to you on my string and returned to see your response here, than read; "Assume that geometrical space and physical space are two different concepts." I absolutely agree. And Bubbles within bubbles. Read the below. We think alike. I'll now apply your score to deservedly lift your placing.


Thank you. I admire all who write science in a foreign language and make it valuable and comprehensible. I imagine what nonsense mine would be if I tried to write in Russian!

One question, (I'll post on both strings); I suggest that in reality Cartesian 'frame' systems are unreal so help confound much of science, and we need solid 'material', forming 3D geometrical shapes to then make proper sense of nature.


Very best.


report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 00:00 GMT
Peter, thanks for the question.

I also criticize the Cartesian coordinate system for its long axis and on this basis to reject the special theory of relativity, as it is the basis of the inertial reference system, which prevent each other from moving due to the long axes. I believe that the Cartesian coordinate system takes place only in the infinitesimal sense. The place where we live is infinitely small relative to the entire Universe, so we can mentally use Cartesian 'frame' systems, assuming that space is at rest.

I wish you success!

Dizhechko Boris

David Pinyana wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 23:24 GMT
Boris very interesting the New Cartesian Physic, that fits very well in my Scale Landscape Framework.

Please, hev a look to these formulas evolution, and I hope you understand the concept:

The Dynamic Laws of Physics (and Universal Gravitation) have varied over time, and even Einstein had already proposed that they still has to evolve:


NEWTON: F = m.a

EINSTEIN. E = m.c2 (*)

MOND: F = m.a.(A/A0)

FRACTAL RAINBOW: F = f (scale) = m.a.(scale factor)

Or better G (Gravity Constant) vary with the scale/distance due to fractal space-time: G = f ( Scale/distance factor)

(*) This equation does not correspond to the same dynamic concept but has many similarities.

report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 09:37 GMT
Уважаемый Дэвид!

Я понял из вашего эссе, что физика – это дорога, на которую другие набросали много мусора, и вы пытаетесь разложить этот мусор по полочкам. Это увлекательная, но тяжёлая работа. Тебе в этом поможет только New Cartesian Physic, в основе которой пространство-материи эквивалентность. Единство пространства и материи возможно единственное рациональное в вашем эссе. О какой масштабности можно говорить, если то, что мы видим на небосводе изогнуто в прошлое, так как сигналы приходят минуты, часы, сто лет, тысячи лет и т.д. после события. Вселенная замкнута потому, что пространство в нём бесконечно двигается и меняет её конфигурацию.

Желаю тебе подружиться с New Cartesian Physic и проявить в ней свои способности.

Всего хорошего!

Dizhechko Boris

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 02:36 GMT
Dear Dizhechko

Thank you for your comments on my page - I will re-read them and comment there.

Your essay is rich with many interesting ideas. I will respond to only two because the analytical formulae of your model new physics seem important and need more study.

You start by a reference to Christian belief, the Logo and Bible quotes. I fully respect that and am myself a Christian, but I have long considered that religion and science do not mix - better for both to be kept strictly separate! Of course we want a single truth, but in my life I have struggled long with this and feel that while we need prayer, the comforts of religious community and so forth, the mind, freed from the dictates of faith, will not accept many of the staples of religion like miracles, the creation story, an unseen power that is all-powerful yet allows evil to exist, etc.

My second point is to thank you for reminding Descartes' concept of space and matter - he also described how the vortices of space transmit light. All that is fundamental to my Beautiful Universe Model and in face include an illustration of Descarte's vortices as figure 22 - (figure also attached here). Just brilliant to have thought of that hundreds of years before.

I wish you all the best in your work.


attachments: BU-FIG-22.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 09:03 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris,

As I told you in my Essay page, I have read your Essay. I find it interesting and pleasant. Despite I do not agree with all your claims, I think that your ideas should deserve a better attention from the scientific community. Thus, in order to help you to better spread such ideas, I decide to give you the highest score. Congrats and good luck in the Contest. I hope that you will have the chance to read, comment and rate our Essay.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Robert Groess wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 21:27 GMT
Dear Boris Dizhechko,

Thank you for pointing out your essay on my forum page. I have in the meantime taken a look and would like to commend you on an intriguing title. My analysis has been somewhat curtailed by the artefacts of the online translator you have chosen to use and find the great wealth of nuances that you would have placed in your essay's details, to be most likely lost in translation. Indeed, translation is a very interesting subject in an of itself, with some overlap within the scope of this essay contest - taking the view that a language is a higher level emergent structure that is dependent on brain wiring architecture. However I am digressing. Perhaps you may have a succinct summary as regards your conclusions, trying in the genesis of volition with relation expressions.



report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 12:31 GMT

I found your essay very interesting, enough so, that I did some browsing on Cartesian philosophy. I was introduced to something I did not know existed. So, thank you for introducing me to a new world. I cannot say that I am a full fledged "new Cartesian" but I certainly use cartesian coordinates excessively.

Your essay was (as you acknowledge) a little difficult to read, but it was worth the struggle. And I learned something new: A logic from a first person perspective that can be applied to the essay question, thus it gets a high rating from me. I think, therefore I am!


Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Daniel de França Diniz Rocha wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 04:13 GMT
Dear Boris,

I did not understand very well the physics part, because of the lack of understanding of English... but the philosophical part was pretty good and quite resembled the treatment that was given by several philosophers. You should check this paper: Which links Kant, Hegel and Einstein to the problems posed by Descartes.

I'd also indicate "Being and Nothingess", by Sartre. But, in order to understand it, I indicate these books (online and free):

You can see how well Sartre solved the problem of observation posed by several philosophers. I really appreciate it:

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.