show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

My return comment to Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich’s comment on my page on Jan 24, 2018

Dear Boris,

You did not tell me of your preference, so I used Boris this time. Let me know if that is not ok with you. Numbers and quantities are used by God in the creation. For the most part math is man’s abstract language used to work with them, so I don’t believe that math is of Satan,...

view entire post

My return comment to Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich’s comment on my page on Jan 24, 2018

Dear Boris,

You did not tell me of your preference, so I used Boris this time. Let me know if that is not ok with you. Numbers and quantities are used by God in the creation. For the most part math is man’s abstract language used to work with them, so I don’t believe that math is of Satan, but like all of the parts of man’s abstract language system it can be used either for good to aid in the understanding of God and his creation or for evil to lead people away from understanding of God and his creation. God did not say that all knowledge was bad or evil for man to have. Man was only forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Once they understood what was good and what was evil, they would know that they were to obey God and to disobey God would result in the penalty of death, which is why God commanded them to not get that knowledge because he knew that their disobedience would result in their deaths. Other knowledge was not forbidden. Math can either model reality, a complete fiction like in video games, or anything in between that is part true and part false. Having a good conceptual understanding based on observation can help to keep the math models based on reality. As an example, if you understand that total motion content is always conserved in interactions, you won’t believe a math model that is based on time as a physical dimension in which you could go back into the past or forward into the future because in order for that to work a complete new copy of the universe would have to be made every time some motion in the universe changed to a new position in space in order for there to be an existent past to go back into before that motion moved. This would be a violation of motion (energy) conservation because it would require a new creation of all of the matter particles, energy photons, and field particles in the universe and even a complete copy of the spatial system to make the copy before it was changed by the movement of the motion to its new position. If you went back in time and changed anything, it would either have to start a new alternate progression of copies of the complete universe from that point or changes would have to somehow be propagated through all of the copies that had been made from that point to the point that you went back in time to change all of the subsequent time to incorporate the changes that you made and all of the other changes that might have occurred as a result of the changes that you made. This would require a complex processing system that could not come about in any natural way and since God does not mention such complexities and observations don’t support them either, it would not be reasonable to assume that they exist. My purpose is not to sow discord, but rather to sow the truth that if believed would eliminate discord. If space is matter and matter is space then there is an unknown or undefined substance that space/matter is composed of that contains the rotation motions that you mention. Without knowing what this substance is, the theory would still be incomplete lacking the most important basis upon which everything is built up upon. In addition to that a continual rotation must be supported by the interaction of two motions with one of them working at an angle to the other, because in the absence of an interaction, motions always move in a straight line. What those motions are and how they work would also need to be explained for the theory to have any possibility to be true. As I mentioned in my previous comment, there would also be the problem that a simple rotation would not produce a static mass effect in the matter particles that was the same in all directions around the particle, but observational data suggests that it is the same in all directions. How is the structure of energy photons explained in your theory? I find it much simpler for space to just provide empty places where motions can be positioned, can transfer to the next position, and can interact with other motions. Making space an active entity that contains complex cyclical motions in it adds unnecessary complexity. It is much simpler to make fields from simple linear motion entities, to construct energy photons by adding one more linear motion to a field particle, and to make matter particles by adding one more motion to an energy photon.

You are welcome. It can sometimes be necessary to simplify a conceptual description in order to gain its acceptance, but there are a couple of possible downsides to that, which are that you might find someone who understands that it won’t work properly in the simplified form and you could look to be lacking in understanding, which would hinder acceptance and if it does get accepted because people could accept the simplified form, you must then change the form to the way that things really work to establish the true workable form, which again could cause you to lose credibility because it can look like you didn’t fully understand it in the first place.

I can understand your problem of lack of time to communicate, but with me the rating is not important because I would not expect to win the contest because I am giving out information that is well beyond man’s maximum acceptance threshold. I am not entering the contests to win, but just to disseminate information that is important to man’s advancement ability. With me, the problem is that once the papers come out, they come out in a large quantity in a short time, which makes it difficult to look at and comment on all of them that I believe might help the contestant in some way to understand how things really work. As I mentioned in my previous comment to you, I believe that space is not God’s body.

I will post this on both my page and yours, so I can have a convenient copy of all of my comments to others and all of the other’s comments to me in one place.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Hi Boris Semyonovich

Thank you for the good evaluation of my work, in which in your opinion «He lacks the principle of the identity of space and matter of Descartes».

I like your work, which «This essay is devoted to the fundamental problem that modern physics is not solved completely», and which, in fact, is fulfilled within the framework of the metaphysics of Descartes....

view entire post

Hi Boris Semyonovich

Thank you for the good evaluation of my work, in which in your opinion «He lacks the principle of the identity of space and matter of Descartes».

I like your work, which «This essay is devoted to the fundamental problem that modern physics is not solved completely», and which, in fact, is fulfilled within the framework of the metaphysics of Descartes.

Of great interest are the consequences of the metaphysics of Descartes, which coincide with my ideas about the world: 1) the world is infinitely extended; 2) it is materially uniform; 3) matter can is shared infinitely many times; 4) emptiness or space that does not contain any matter is a contradiction and, consequently, there is no emptiness. «In new Cartesian physics a corpuscle is a stationary vortex».

The same progressive consequences have been obtained in my work with the help of classical ideas of physics. Thus, why use metaphysics, if in classical physics complete determinism is achieved at any level of matter?

Commonly accepted, that metaphysics indicates the study of what lies beyond the physical phenomena, at the base of them. Therefore, you has «Physical space is the body of God in which we exist and in which wander on the way to it».

In addition, to consider «identity of space and matter of Descartes» i think fundamentally wrong. It is generally accepted that space is an objective reality, a form of existence of matter characterized by its length and volume, the place where matter is contained. Otherwise, we go to the realm of fantasy.

Descartes did not know much in his time, and he was naturally both a physicist and a metaphysician. I think that it is necessary to develop Descartes' ideas, and not postulate them.

For example, the law of conservation of Descartes' momentum immediately led to the formulation of the fundamental law of conservation of angular momentum, the application of which (combined with other laws) was brought to the absurdity by metaphysical representations of modern science. This is what I try to show in my work.

I think our task in studying the Universe device is to use only causal physical processes and topology in absolute classical space, but not in the use of abstractions, probabilities, ideals and causeless processes.

Vladimir Fedorov

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

My response to Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich’s comment on my paper’s page on Jan. 26, 2018

Dear Boris,

I can understand your desire to get the best review that you can on your paper, so that you could likely win a prize in the contest, so I won’t ask you to give me a return comment, so that you can devote your time to trying to win the contest, but I feel the need to respond to...

view entire post

My response to Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich’s comment on my paper’s page on Jan. 26, 2018

Dear Boris,

I can understand your desire to get the best review that you can on your paper, so that you could likely win a prize in the contest, so I won’t ask you to give me a return comment, so that you can devote your time to trying to win the contest, but I feel the need to respond to your comment because you seem to believe that the use of numbers and the exploration of the world leads people to commit sins and that you are committing blasphemy by doing so, which is not the case. First Satan is not everywhere that God is. Satan is a creature created by God and is an angel, so he would have access to the 3 heavens and the earth, but he does not have access to the eighth (highest) place in the creation because only God the Father and the Word can go there he also cannot go outside of the creation where only God can go. Those who have chosen to become members or parts of God’s body and have been completely sanctified and have God living and ruling in their lives do not need to fear Satan because God is much greater in power and in all other ways than Satan, since he is the creator and Satan is just one of his creatures. Those who are being sanctified, but have not yet completed the process that makes them completely ready for God to fully live in them by replacing all of the foolishness that is naturally built into man with the knowledge of God, can still be tempted in some cases, but God can also keep them from sinning, which is why when the disciples asked Jesus how they should pray he gave them a prayer the included asking God to “lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”. Those who do not choose to become members of God’s body are given over to Satan to rule over them, so they will be led into sinning by him. He works this through many lies and other means, since they are not protected by God. The biggest lie is the one that he used with Eve to get her to sin, which is that you can be as gods. People are convinced that they can rule over their own lives and be completely independent from all others, when in reality they are obeying Satan’s desires. This is why even though they say that they are for everyone having free choice in all matters, they actively try to get rid of all evidence of the existence of God from the world, which if successful would actually take away the freedom of choice to choose to become members of God’s body, as an example. Of course, God will not allow that to happen because he always keeps a remnant among the people. Satan knows that once God has completed the making of his body members, there will be no more need to have him to rule over those who do not choose God because God will then destroy this creation and all of the evil that is in it including him and will make a new better creation in which evil will not exist. He, therefore, tries to keep God from finishing his work by destroying as many people as he can. He will even try to kill those who serve him because he knows that as long as they are alive they can change their minds and chose to become God’s body members. He must keep them from understanding what they are giving up until they die, in order to be sure that they will be lost to God because it is then too late for them to change their minds. There is, therefore, a way for people to avoid having Satan in their minds leading them to explore the world in such a way as to cause them to commit sins. It just requires them to choose to have God in their minds leading them to explore the world in such a way as to cause them to do good instead of evil. Exploring and gaining an understanding of God and his creation is not against God’s will. He actually tells us to do so. That is why Jesus said “seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you, ask and ye shall receive.” Seek means to actively look or see or observe that which is around you, which is the basis for gaining all understanding of the world and is a necessary part of the scientific method. To knock is to interact with the world and is also a part of the scientific method. After all, most of what is known about matter particles has resulted from knocking them together and observing the results. The asking has two parts. First is that when you begin to search for an understanding of the world you can find others who have already spent much time seeking, knocking, and asking who can give you the benefit of their work, thus avoiding the need for each person to redo everything. You must be careful, though, to be sure that the provided information is correct. The second part is that you can ask God and since he made all of the creation and knows everything about himself, he can show you all he desires for you to know about it and him at the proper time for you to use it according to his purpose. The difference is that God desires for you to know the truth about him and the creation that he made including those things that can tell you things about him, while Satan desires for you to believe things based on lies that will keep you from seeing and understanding the things that will tell you about God and his nature and the things that would show you that he made the creation. To me the choice is easy to make. You either choose the one who made you and loves you enough that he desires for you to become a part of him and to live and work together in a loving relationship with him in a life without end in a new perfect world without end or you choose the one who desires to destroy you so that he can delay God’s work as long as he can to keep himself alive as long as he can. The best that you can hope for if you make that second choice is to have a life that will most likely be less than 100 years long in this world and then to have death and destruction.

Usually to say God in heaven does not refer to the earth’s heaven where the sun, moon and other stars, etc. are located, but refers instead to the heaven that is the other part of the creation, which is divided into 3 heavens. The earth is contained in the lower 4 dimensions of the creation. The first heaven also has an additional fifth dimension and is controlled by the powers. The second heaven has an additional sixth dimension and is controlled by the principalities. The third heaven has an additional seventh dimension and is ruled by the angels. God’s throne is located in the middle of the third heaven. When someone with understanding says God in heaven, he would usually be referring to the third heaven where God’s throne is. We are not given much information as to the construction of the heavens, so we don’t even know if it contains any matter as we know it. When God had created the earth he said that it was without form and void. This means that it contained space that was meant to hold or contain things with shapes or forms, but it was empty space at that time and did not contain any of those things within it. The things would, of course, be things made of matter, but matter had not yet been created in it. This tells us that the space and the matter are two different things. The space was created first and later the matter was created in it out of motions that were added to the earth later. Gravity has to do with the sub-energy field particles that the Spirit of God added to the earth when he moved upon the face of the waters and the fifth vector motion that changes energy photons into matter particles, etc., but I can’t go into the details of that at this time.

I hope that this can help you to avoid the blasphemy and to gain the relationship with God that will deliver you from evil. As I said, you don’t have to answer this comment as I know you are busy trying to get good reviews to win the contest.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Dear Dizhechko Boris

I think your essay is very important (the best one I know so far) and therefore rated, Since it profoundly attacks most of current problems in physics.

To address all problems and put new forward going Idea are two very important actions, but I sometimes wonder which one is most important to focus on first?.

Regarding to history of scientific development...

view entire post

Dear Dizhechko Boris

I think your essay is very important (the best one I know so far) and therefore rated, Since it profoundly attacks most of current problems in physics.

To address all problems and put new forward going Idea are two very important actions, but I sometimes wonder which one is most important to focus on first?.

Regarding to history of scientific development It has been something normal that scientists at time conclude their work and generalize to equation, based what they so far but second generations must be aware it's validity and if there is new discovery immediately must be profoundly interpreted while taking into account it Philsophical aspect, other wise misinterpretation may lead chain of misconceptions.

A best example is tremendous situation of the separation (due to matter of misinterpretation) between Classical Physics and the Quantum Mechanics.

Linking them to the Fundamental nature of Gravity, there is 232 years old PUZZLE namely Coulomb's Law which have valid reason last 85 years (1932 last nucleon discovery), but I m not quite sure if today's Scientists are aware to it and it's consequences. I think the appropriate and inspiring question is;

Regarding to Coulomb's law a statement that says "same type of charge repell and different type of charge attracts". How Coulomb would conclude his law, if he know that nuclei has protons that same type of charge are attracting each other and with the neutrons? and they can be divided into fractions of charge?.

I agree conceptual explanation and would like to discuss it later.

The fundamental concept physics is based on three basic units Mass, Space and Time ( matter plus two related basic effects) which isn't interchangeable but their effects (derived) as energy, force an so are interchangeable since it agrees with our everyday experience.

The case of mass energy the is lot we can discuss about, In 2010 (previous essay) I quantized that mass of elementary particle (photon) but I have experienced that there is great misunderstanding due to confusion of terms over last hundred years.

Mass of photon m=E/c^2 = 1.7x10^-36kg.

Wavelength = 1.2398×10^-8 m

These results and perhaps more are also in Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt

We are incoherently talking same thing in diffrent name. I would be thankful if one can comment.

Sincerely.

Bashir

view post as summary

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Boris, captured by your opening paragraph and your Cartesian emphasis (and being, as you know, a Maintenance-Mechanic specialising in FOUNDATIONS) -- [oops, caps = Freudian slip] -- I was delighted to see you using [see my essay] Born's Law on your p.6. And more intrigued when I saw your closing line: "Physical space is the body of God in which we exist and in which wander on the way to...

view entire post

Dear Boris, captured by your opening paragraph and your Cartesian emphasis (and being, as you know, a Maintenance-Mechanic specialising in FOUNDATIONS) -- [oops, caps = Freudian slip] -- I was delighted to see you using [see my essay] Born's Law on your p.6. And more intrigued when I saw your closing line: "Physical space is the body of God in which we exist and in which wander on the way to it."

For this line triggered a corrective recollection from my years of teenage rationalism (as yet undiminished)! Though, at that time, I was not aware of (and therefore was independently following, in my terms) Descartes' Dictum (DD):

"Never accept anything for true which you do not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and bring nothing more to your judgment than what is presented to your mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt."

For I immediately recalled, from the KJV English Bible --- Acts 17:28 --- For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

My own translation, from the Greek [so keen was I to understand such things] was: "In God we live, emote, and develop [our will and intellect]."

And when I looked for those poets, I found a related verse from an invocation to Zeus! As google now tells me: Zeus, in ancient Greek religion, chief deity of the pantheon, a sky and weather god who was identical with the Roman god Jupiter. His name clearly comes from that of the sky god Dyaus of the ancient Hindu Rigveda. Zeus was regarded as the sender of thunder and lightning, rain, and winds, and his traditional weapon was [electromagnetic] the thunderbolt. He was called the father (i.e., the ruler and protector) of both gods and men.

Thus, in this way, we arrive at a true fundament; in my view suited to the rationalist and the religious alike. It goes something like this: "God: in whom we live, emote, and develop our will and intellect; and, as a certain poet has said, From whom we are all related."

I look forward to your comments on this joint enterprise.

As for your ideas re Descartes ideas, I must (at the moment, subordinating space and mass to God) invoke DD.

With my thanks and best regards,

Gordon Watson

@ More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

view post as summary

show all replies (4 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Dizhechko

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My...

view entire post

Dear Dizhechko

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it’s central theme.

Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn’t then nebula gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

view post as summary