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 forums@fqxi.org 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

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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 Fund.
read/discusswinners

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

read/discusswinners

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
read/discusswinners

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

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
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
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
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 3/2/18 at 13:02pm UTC, wrote The consciousness of the people resists the recognition of the identity of...

Steve Agnew: on 3/2/18 at 5:41am UTC, wrote I too am a big fan of Descartes and Cartesian space and time are the...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 2/26/18 at 14:22pm UTC, wrote Dear Christian Corda, thanks for the kind words. I here urge all...

Christian Corda: on 2/26/18 at 13:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Boris Dizhechko, Thanks for visiting my Essay page and for...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 2/26/18 at 3:27am UTC, wrote Thank you Gary for your kind words. You great entered the New Cartesian...

Gary Hansen: on 2/26/18 at 2:31am UTC, wrote Hello Boris, I enjoyed your comment to the effect that we ‘need to break...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 2/25/18 at 14:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Jouko Tiainen Harri, the speed of light as the imaginary unit is very...

Jouko Tiainen: on 2/25/18 at 9:33am UTC, wrote Yes it is obvious as you say --- too much of modern physics is based on...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Jorma Seppaenen: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 25, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 17:12 GMT
Essay Abstract

The principle of identity of space and matter is the Foundation for building fundamental theories. It allows you to explain the formula of equivalence of mass and energy Einstein the existence of the pressure of the Universe. It detects the equivalence of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of quantum States in the atom. He redefines a mass of the body as a flow of the acceleration vector. The stability of the particles, he explains that the velocity of the space inside it reaches the speed of light and time slows down, etc. New Cartesian physics is at an early stage of development, formulated its principles, give a powerful impetus to the development of modern physics. Acquaintance with it can be very rewarding.

Author Bio

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich, 1945 year of birth, worked as a mechanic, then an engineer at the measuring equipment. Higher education: teacher of mathematics. Promotes of the ideas of the French philosopher René Descartes. Founder New Cartesian physics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Flavio Del Santo wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 21:54 GMT
So ... your conclusion is that "physical space is the body

of God in which we exist and in which wander on the way to it"?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 08:13 GMT
Flavio Del Santo,

My conclusion is that the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes is a fundamental followed since the beginning of the essay. At the end of it I noticed that the space is as the body of God, which is our physical world.

When a believer in God I ask - where is your God. He says - in the sky. For me the sky is the space created by matter which we cannot see, but feel the length.

Bookmark and Share



John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 22:53 GMT
Boris

Your theory starts with the assumption that light moves with the same speed in relation to all inertial observers. That assumption is illogical, and cannot give a consistent theory, only absurdities.

You have no mechanism that can explain gravity.

What do you think about these ideas?

Regards from __________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 07:56 GMT
 John-Eric,

The postulate claims that the speed of light in all inertial systems is constant belongs to Einstein. I tried to show that it implies the identity of space and matter.

In my essay there is no mechanism for gravity. I believe that it is already well described, including you.

I wish You success!

Bookmark and Share


Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 05:47 GMT
John-Eric

Dizhechko is right here. The postulate comes from Einstein and has be checked at every level by just about anyone who works in the area. Yes it leads to a weird world model but this seems to align to the reality. It is what Special Relativity is all about.

Stephen Anastasi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 19:55 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

You wrote: “And the contemporary community as never before requires an adequate level of development of clears vision of the world of its existence, which currently does not give answers to many global issues.” My clear vision of the world answers all questions concerning its reality.

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 02:36 GMT
Джо, человек видит пространство как бесконечную поверхность, потому что пространство-это материя, которую мы не видим.

Bookmark and Share


Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 02:41 GMT
Joe, one sees space as an infinite surface because the space is matter that we cannot see.

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 16:01 GMT
Dizhechko,

There am no space. There am only infinite surface that we always see.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 05:42 GMT
Dear Dizhechko

This is a copy of my response to you in my essay, 'A cold bang...' at https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3041. I am repeating it here because our essays at least share the Cartesian perspective (yours is a physics perspective and mine aligns with Descartes as a rationalist).

>>> I wrote:

Thank you for reading my work. My previous essay is very much taken from a Cartesian philosophical stance, which is endpoint rationalism. This essay is founded on that essay, visit https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1904 . This may seem to be 'recycling' other physics, when in reality it explains why other physics is as it is (metaphysics) not how it is (physics).This isn't supposed to be possible according to Hume and Kant. I wonder how your Cartesian physics might connect to my Cartesian rationalism?

The 'fundament' should be very easy to understand, as you say, and if you read the previous essay, you will see that it is easy (even if abstract) because it is just a person's internal idea of equivalence and difference, which I show is necessarily the foundation of human understanding. Ultimately, I argue that all knowledge (meaning justified truth worthy of belief) is only accessible from this idea of equivalence, which I express formally as the General Principle of Equivalence. The ontological necessity of the GPE is only referenced in this essay, but it is established in the first essay - https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1904

I hope this is of value. It produces a foundation for time and space, which ought to key into your New Cartesian model, but may need a deal of consideration. Thank you for making contact.

Best wishes

Stephen.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 22:49 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

There's much overlap in our interpretation of physics, particularly your emphasis on the fact that

"Sometimes discovery is not a physical property of an object, but a property of the mathematical structure."

I touch on this in my essay when I quote Maudlin:

"…even if we can describe a mathematical structure that everywhere looks locally like a possible space-time structure, it does not follow that the whole object corresponds to a physical possibility."

There are many examples of such projection in physics, many of them applying to quantum mechanics. As one example I would suggest that the Compton wavelength, considered as the size of a particle, is almost certainly incorrect. Nevertheless it appears useful.

My focus is on the Einsteinian "ether, physical space, and field" becoming synonymous. I prefer the concept of 'field', and in particular the gravito magnetic field, which is a circulation/vortex in the field. This seems to agree with yours/Descartes's view in many interpretations.

If you read my last essay on the Nature of Mind, you will find it not far from your final sentence.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 07:58 GMT
Yes, Edwin, behind the mathematical structure the material content is forgotten or distorted. Here is your example of the circulation of the vector of electrical tension - it's a whirlwind, with this no one argues. Disagreement goes on. You say this is a whirlwind of ether, and I say it is a whirlwind of space, which is matter, according to the principle of the identity of space and the matter of Descartes. Space has one synonym - matter, the rest is its state. A physical vacuum is a state of the physical space when there are no corpuscles in it. Corpuscles are stationary vortices of space. A field is a space, each point of which has a potential. Etc.

Now I go to your page, make a comment, so you get a notification about it. I want all those who speak about the ether to be winners on one condition that they forget the word "ether" and use instead of it the concept of physical space, which is matter.

Bookmark and Share



Paul N Butler wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


sherman loran jenkins wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 00:17 GMT
Dizhechko,

You are correct to note the relationship between various good physical theories and see that they must share fundamental principles. The present state with fragmented theories and observations can be assembled into a single theory after setting aside unnecessary and distracting parts. These odd parts are often holdover from previous theories or based on unwarranted mathematical projections.

I agree that “space is matter.” And propose that most anyone coming to this place with an open mind can reach a similar conclusion. And see that the localized motion of these bits of matter give us what is known as the Higgs field. And the basis of time. The curvature of this solid body gives the force we call gravity. And the slightly denser region in and near galaxies is called “dark matter."

Congratulations on an excellent essay. I will post both at your essay and after your comment on my essay.

Sherman Jenkins

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Priyanka Giri wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 14:35 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

I enjoyed your essay. New Cartesian physics is interesting indeed. The way it connects de Broglie wavelength to Lorentz transformation. But the assumptions you made in this theory, how much do you think it is reasonable especially in the case of GR?

Best,

Priyanka

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 09:22 GMT
Priyanka Giri, I am an independent researcher, I do not have any connections with the institutes. This gives me freedom of thinking. Consciousness of people resists recognition of the identity of space and matter of Descartes, because they are used to think that they live in an empty space - it is convenient for them. So far there was no reason for them to think otherwise. However, there will come a time when the level of education of people will be determined by their understanding of this identity. To this they are bound by the need to eliminate the difficulties in science. The fundamental must save our thinking, i.e. be simple and understandable.

If you have the opportunity, then write a book based on your questions and my answers about the essence of new Cartesian physics

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 11:30 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 04:42 GMT
[/https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2999]

Bookmark and Share


Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 06:54 GMT
New Cartesian Physics[/community/forum/topic/2999]



Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 07:06 GMT
FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

Bookmark and Share


Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 07:09 GMT
FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich[/link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2999]




Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 18:29 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Bauch wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 21:09 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

I've read many Russian novels and your last name sounds familiar. Great works, those. Going through your essay I had to learn a little about Descartes and was amazed to find out that his three laws of nature predated Newton's laws of motion. I like your statement: “All the upper floors of modern physics – is a solid mathematical abstraction with a distant hint of physical content.” Like you, I think there is something fundamental about simple geometry, especially when it involves the circular form. In all, a thought provoking essay.

Regards, Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 04:01 GMT
Yes, Peter, Descartes wanted to make all physics as geometry. However, in science the most famous is its coordinate system, which gave rise to analytic geometry. It is from there that the concept of space has passed into other areas of knowledge. Space was called any set of objects in which each element can be expressed through other elements. Thus, science did not notice its fundamental concept of physical space, which is matter. For this reason, everything fundamental in science was left without a foundation.

My last name is of Ukrainian origin. In translation, it means a small barrel. So you can call the smallest particle of space, which according to Descartes is matter.

I wish you success! Dizhechko Boris

Bookmark and Share



Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 00:03 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 07:22 GMT
Dear Bashir, in new-Cartesian physics, corpuscles is three-dimensional vortices that, under the influence of the pressure of the Universe, unite into bodies. It recognizes two fundamental forces: the force of the pressure of the universe and the centrifugal force of rotation of space. The remaining forces are their combinations and superposition’s that arise when the corpuscles are combined into bodies. The Coulomb law and Newton's law of gravitation have a common in the inverse square of the distance, and so the surface of the sphere can vary. Consequently, they can be generalized by the Gaussian Law. The law of equivalence of mass and energy in the new-Cartesian physics of corpuscles is explained by the fact that the centrifugal force in the vortex is balanced by the force of the Universe pressure.

Sincerely, Boris

Bookmark and Share



peter cameron wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:20 GMT
Hello Boris,

Is there a wavefunction in your model?

Pete

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 21:13 GMT
Hi Peter! New Cartesian Physics more than a model, it wants to be the theory of everything OO. In it, the wave function describes the rotation of space, which according to Descartes is matter.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 05:13 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


adel sadeq wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 20:14 GMT
Hi Dizhechko

Thank you for visiting my essay.Actually your idea has been noticed before even by me:)

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-these-relations-hav
e-any-physical-significance.899307/#post-5658931

There are also very sophisticated versions that capitalize on the theme, there are many papers, here is one

http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/electron.pdf

I think they are all interesting and known for a long time, but does not seem to have been accepted. Maybe you can find a way.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 00:23 GMT
Adel,I can only agree with the fact that a mathematical structure emerges from reality and further, beyond the mathematical structure, we can see reality.

You stubbornly do not want to admit that space is matter and that space contains information about the mathematical structure of reality.

Bookmark and Share


adel sadeq replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 12:57 GMT
I think you misunderstood my theory, I think you did not study it well. My theory says and proves that space, time, matter and their interactions are all Aspects of a mathematical structure, That is, relation between NUMBERS. So you can say matter is made from space OR space is made from matter. It is like the structure of a triangle, you could say the relations between the lines decides the angles or the angles decide the relations between the lines. You are describing the same thing and origin of it is just numbers.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 15:03 GMT
Adele, you imagined yourself above Descartes. He said: "Give me the matter, and I will build the whole world." You say: "Give numbers and for their relations see the world" Do you see the difference? According to Descartes, space is matter that can be in a state of physical vacuum that we do not see or in a state of tangible corpuscles. A field is a physical space, each point of which has its potential, defined by a mathematical formula. So, that physical space is the foundation on which fundamental theories are built. The world is the invention of God, and mathematics is the invention of man.

Bookmark and Share



Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 22:58 GMT
Boris, hoping this helps when I comment on your essay, this is an edited carry-over from my answer to you at More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

......................

Dear Boris, I'm replying here [@ my essay-thread] because your comment is currently missing.

NB: if you saw me in the penthouse of Towerblock-101, that's because I am the Chief Maintenance Mechanic there, 24/7. The basement, where the foundations are exposed, is where "I live, move and have my being" *** -- even sleeping there beneath my desk.

Thus, relatedly, my essay begins with two axioms and a consequent premiss: true local realism. I then study EPRB, identifying beables and interactions in a related notation.

There follows --- from first principles, in my "neo-classical" terms and concretely --- the Laws of Malus, Bayes, and Born (the last thanks to Fourier and the R-F theorem).

Though not shown (for space reasons, and from any good textbook), the consequent confirmatory QM-style application of Born's Law (now concretely established, as above; and without mystery) to EPRB and DSE (+++) is immediate.

Reproducing the correct results -- without mystery -- you can thus see that we are well on our way to reformulating QM ++ from elementary fundaments, absent mystery.

With thanks for your [now missing] comment [@ my essay-thread], more may follow on its return; I write here from recall.

Gordon

..........................................

PS: *** in-part prompted by the last line of your essay: to which I'll return in my next comment.

Gordon Watson

@ More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 00:27 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 04:49 GMT
Dear Boris, hoping this helps to clarify my position in relation to your essay, this is carried-over from my answer to you at More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

As I also indicated: Your essay is ahead of many of us in touching on that most elementary of fundaments: the space in which we live, move and have our being.

.............

Dear Boris,

Please note the the fundamental originality in my theory is to replace "realism -- which, even in physics, is naive-realism -- by true realism: "true realism insists that some existents may change interactively."

You then see that this elementary foundation (with true locality) already provides a classical basis for much of modern physics.

Thus -- as I have just replied to you (above) -- when I "put my mind to the consideration of physical space" I arrive at this:

As I understand Descartes' theory of matter: matter is defined by the amount of space that it occupies; so all space is matter; thus empty space does not exist; hence the space between planets is occupied by an invisible fluid (an ether) and vortices therein drive the planets around the Sun.

To my modern mind (though it be no match for Descartes), I prefer to talk in terms of beables [existents, things which exist]. So I would talk of planets [as matter] and spacetime, with planetary motion driven by the latter AND matter (which, as against Descartes, is not far distant from him saying that the planets are driven by the matter of space).

Thus, for me -- in giving beable-status to "space" and its consequents --- Descartes was ahead of his time: as we all waited for another genius, called Einstein.

Question: Do you accept true locality and true realism; eg, see ¶1.4 in my essay?

Cheers; Gordon

...

Gordon Watson

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 08:58 GMT
Greetings Mr. Semyonovich

I appreciate your effort to read the essay, but i don't believe that i fully understand your question "Your essay is the first among those who are looking for what is fundamental?" what do you mean by that? because what i wrote here is quite simple and therefor it cannot have the attribute of "the first...", but i suppose that you didn't want to say that, that's why i say that i do not fully understand what you wanna ask.

Otherwise i am quite new in this field of scientists and i try to learn the convention between them, with the intention to become one, if it suits me. with that said the next misunderstanding will be on "rating an essay". you said "I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea" and i am truly honored by your words but have you rate it already? or should i be the first(among us) who rates and after that i will get rated as well?

As you can see, i am a little confused so please don't take my words as malicious or hostile but as an effort to get out of this confusion. In each case i will read and rate your piece of work. Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 09:08 GMT
this post is a reply to your opinions regarding this essay "Fundamental" could become nonessential for itself

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 16:34 GMT
Dear Boris!

I am really very enjoyed to read your work, where I has find the same things that I am thinking. This is not only kindly words but I am a little bit shocked how two people can seen the same problem. It make me hopeful that others also can be able to see und to understund about on what we are crying here! But, I think this will hapen not so fast, my Dear!

Your suggested way to solution is some different than my, but here also I seen many common points (as the principle of conservation of the angular momentum, or the incrase of speed to - c with decrasing radius of circulation. These things finds place within my approach too .... but it will long matter to talk about all of this.

So, I can only very welcome your essay and wish you success in the contest!

Good Wishes,

George Kirakosyan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 03:46 GMT
Hi Dizhechko Boris,

I investigated Descartes' "The World". Your essay got it right, space and matter consist of mass and this is a Foundation for building further fundamental theories.

As I said on my blog: I hope you noticed that in my essay I have developed a theory that has both matter and space as having mass. Descartes was very insightful! Also you should have also noticed that I have a diagram that shows the vortexes produced by gravity. Descartes on the ball again!

Be sure to reference my essay in your New Cartesian physics :)

I liked your essay (although it was not easy to read), but once again it got me closer to Descartes.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 09:02 GMT
Dear Don Limuti, I sure to reference your essay in New Cartesian physics. To say that space and matter consist of mass is the same thing, that to say the space, which matter, moves, because according to the formula of mass-energy equivalence , mass is the energy of motion.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share



Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 20:11 GMT
One has to admire someone who takes the time to come up with a theory of everything that even includes God. This essay is better than most this reviewer has encountered. There is a historical background and the mathematics is mostly clear. There are large gaps in the derivation that equates important formulas and concepts in Physics in a manor that is unique, but with little justification.

Above is my review, I felt that you did not prove your point, but your ratings are high, hope you win.

Sincerely,

Jeff Schmitz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 03:41 GMT
Thanks, Jeff Schmitz, for his criticism of my essay. I understand that it was written poorly. Its main aim is to attract researchers to continue the theory of everything of Descartes’ taking into account modern achievements in physics. The principle of identity of physical space and matter allows us to extend physics to living matter. For this we need to pay attention to the fact that matter within the body is the same as outside it. Our brain creates an image of the outside world not within themselves and in the space around themselves. This image of the outside world has an active nature, as it controls the body.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko .

Bookmark and Share



Maxim Yurievich Khlopov wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 11:34 GMT
Dear Boris Semyonovich,

Your new-Cartesian radicalism definitely deserves attention and interest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 23:46 GMT
My essay is a call for researchers to remember the identity of space and matter of Descartes, and to continue his theory of everything in the light of modern achievements of physics.

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 07:08 GMT
Dizhechko,

Thanks for checking out my essay. IN your essay, how does it regard the original Descartes comparison of the three laws of motion with other physics theories:

1. Every body will remain at rest, or in a uniform state of motion unless pushed or pulled.

2. When a body is pushed or pulled, it accelerates proportional to the force of the push or pull and inversely proportional to the mass of the body and in the direction pushed or pulled.

3. Every push or pull has an equal and opposite reaction.

I am trying to see how the New Cartesian physics is a generalization of the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and other theories based on the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 10:22 GMT
Jim Hoover, many researchers use the concept of ether, which in fact is a physical space, but which according to Descartes is matter. I say these researchers – replace your mythological ether on the physical space, and would be fine. New Cartesian Physics consider these researchers as asset.

For Descartes the physical space is a physical environment, the movement of which can only be a rotation. The transition of rotational movement from one orbit to another is possible when the pull or push. Like a rocket on the ground when she not pushed, she remains.

Newton was not right when he said that he sees further Descartes so as standing on his shoulders. For him, space is an empty in which flying body possessing mass. Descartes physical space is a matter, in which there are no empty. But if they are formed, then closes instantly. Taking into account modern concepts, the speed of light is the limit for any real movements, in the New Cartesian Physics the empty in the space closes to the speed of light. For intelligent people from this moment begins the real physics.

In my essay I showed the relationship between the probability of quantum States and the factor of Lorentz. I believe that this is the first step toward synthesis of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. More show I not could , as it requires a lot of effort which must be highly appreciated.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share


Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 00:12 GMT
Jim Hoover, direct line on which a body is moving uniformly accelerated if operates a force exists only in our imagination. In the real world, such a movement is observed only in a small area and as a component of the real movement. Thus, the Newton was considered a ideal movement in a small area, and Descartes considered real motion, where the uniform motion is in a circular orbit, where it is also necessary to pull the body to the center

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 02:28 GMT
Dizhechko,

"Many researchers use the concept of ether, which in fact is a physical space, but which according to Descartes is matter. I say these researchers – replace your mythological ether on the physical space, and would be fine. New Cartesian Physics consider these researchers as asset." This no one can disprove, let alone me, and is a contribution to all our ideas. Time grows short, and rating are sparse in this contest. I will rate yours at this time.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert D. Sadykov wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 07:26 GMT
Dear Boris Dizhechko,

On the key points, I fully agree with You. Indeed, space has a certain set of physical properties and therefore it is matter or substance. Of course, the properties of this substance are different from the properties, for example, of an electron. But the available properties are sufficient for the recognition of space as a substance. Gravity as a phenomenon in one way or another is related to the properties of space. Regarding energy. If any potential energy is a hidden form of kinetic energy, then any substance that has its own energy must consist of structures or elements that have zero rest mass and are moving at the speed of light. For example, an electron can be a ring-shaped closed string that has zero rest mass and rotating at the speed of light. Under these conditions, the zero mass of the string forms the usual non-zero mass of the electron. Other implementations are also possible, but some kind of movement or - in your terminology - vortices should be. I give You a high rating.

Best wishes,

Robert Sadykov

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 14:46 GMT
Boris,

This is a good essay and I sense some agreement with the overall direction. The problem with connecting to my own view is one of both perspective and interpretation. You are from more of a mechanical background, so having to fit pieces together, while I come from a more agricultural background, so the dynamic I see is thermodynamics, because I spend most of my time outside and to me understanding physics often just means not getting hurt, so I keep it simple, but effective.

Consider in my essay, I pointed out that space is both infinite and absolute(perfect equilibrium, as in absolute zero). Now consider the two sides of the cosmic convection cycle, of radiation expanding to infinity, or as far as it can go, before fading to neutrality, as mass coalesces into black holes, pulling into stillness. Which are really the eye of the storm and as the energy radiates and jets back out.

So what I try to say is that space is not "physical," in the sense of being defined and thus limited. As infinity and equilibrium are not physical properties. The Big Bang theory tries to argue that space is finite and flexible, but that is like saying zero is still something, because it is a number. No. Nothing is not something. To be physical means something has definition and motion. Like a temperature of absolute zero can only be inferred, not actually measured, because measurement requires a connection with a measuring device and thus some motion. Nothing has no physical properties, because it is not physical, but infinity and equilibrium are not physical, so they need no cause. Yet everything, including all the math and all the numbers, are between zero and infinity. Nothing and everything.

So that I why I think we need to not try to make space physical.

I can understand why people like to think of space as physical, because the very act of thinking is about boundaries and definitions, so it is like seeing beyond thought.

Regards,

John B Merryman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 17:11 GMT
The consciousness of the people resists the recognition of the identity of space and matter Descartes, because they used to think that I live in an empty space – it is convenient for them. While there was no reason to think otherwise. However, there will come a time when the level of education of the people will depend on their understanding of this identity. This requires the necessity to eliminate the difficulties in science. Fundamental should save our thinking, i.e. to be simple and straightforward. Physical space, which for Descartes is a matter that is the basis for fundamental theories in science.

You might like to look at the sky and it seems to you empty infinite space in which it moves large and small body. However, this impression is deceptive. According to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes, space is matter that moves. When Copernicus asserted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, it had, according to Descartes, to add that along with the Earth revolves around the Sun, all the solar space. Space is what built the world.

If the believer to ask, where is God? He will answer – in the sky. When you look into infinite space and I think that is the body of God, that needs to be asked, and how it works? The answer is simple, all the changes around and our weight is the result of his actions. In space contains information about changing the world. Time is a synonym of total moving

Bookmark and Share


John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 17:48 GMT
Boris,

The problem with the monotheistic concept of God is it assumes a spiritual absolute would be an ideal from which we fell, when it would be an essence from which we rise.

More the raw consciousness of the new born child, than the hard won wisdom of the old man. In physics terms, more the field, than the point particle. We think consciousness is an effect of thinking, but it is the other way around. Thinking is how we express consciousness. Consciousness is the medium, thought is the message.

Consciousness is a process, not an entity. Thoughts are the entities produced by the process of consciousness. An essence bubbling up, rather than the top down forms it assumes.

Regards,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 20:18 GMT
John ,

The space is called a field if every point has a potential.

The principle of identity of physical space and matter allows us to extend physics to living matter. For this we need to pay attention to the fact that matter within the body is the same as outside it. Our brain creates an image of the outside world not within themselves and in the space around themselves. This image of the outside world has an active nature, as it controls the body.

Sincerely,

Boris

Bookmark and Share



Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 20:10 GMT
Boris,

You are something of an artist. You paint with very grand ideas.

I see some similarity in your thinking and mine. The derivation you present in Section 3 is similar to the hypothesis that I presented in the last essay contest. I took the Lorentz Transform and added to it the term (v/c)i. That made their sum equal to Euler's Equation. Essentially, that produced the right triangle that you use.

In Sections 4 and 5, you present ideas that are similar to the form of the Maxwell Equations that I was taught.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 01:58 GMT
Gary, I thinkin in order to develop our ideas, which coincided, by the use of quaternions.

New Cartesian Physics needs your support to develop further.

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share



Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 16:38 GMT
Dear Boris,

Sorry for my late reaction to your post on my essay.

Descartes had the combination of mathematics, physics and philosophy, which in our present time is not much seen, listening to someone like him is so advisable.

Also, his infinitesimal calculus gave a method to work with something that is difficult to understand in the "real" world.

"Cogito ergo sum" is one of my favourite thoughts, only I have made a difference by accepting that "thinking" is a quality of Consciousness. Only the consciousness as I see it is NOT the result OF COMPLEXITY, but complexity is a result of consciousness, (as you may have read in my essay).

Space and matter are both the same "emerging phenomena", at which I add also TIME.

We are the same age Boris, I was born in July 1945 in Holland and live in France now for 20 years. I appreciated your essay highly and hope that will do the same to

mine

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 17:35 GMT
Wilhelmus de Wilde, Descartes was determined to create a theory of everything. He said: "give me matter and I will build the whole world." The space had been the matter that moves. Would be great if this idea of the Great French philosopher, mathematician and physicist suddenly helped to overcome the current crisis in physics.

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 05:00 GMT
Hi Boris,

I agree with the idea that space is filled. The 'space-matter' is not all uniform and so needs differentiating into its different kinds of actualization. I think that saying space is 'matter' is potentially confusing because of the particular word chosen. The rest mass of the non atomic or sub atomic 'space-matter' is also a problem because space without sub atomic particles or objects is taken to be void of mass (rather than energy) and measurements are calibrated that way. So it doesn't fit the definition of matter, which is said to have rest mass. Volume is a little tricky too as we tend to think of that space that is not a part of the volume of an object as not being volume so the two, object and not object, can be separated. I just think another term might cause less problems.

The idea of motion being circles is potentially a useful way of thinking about motion in the universe when there isn't propulsion taking an object out of the natural motion that would occur.

I don't like the use of Einstein's Relativity to describe something quite different from relative perception happening deep within atoms. I don't think it applies. I also don't think that existence is at different times. So having time stopped in the centre of the atom isn't helpful in my opinion. As you will have read I consider foundational passage of time to be something very different from the signal transmission time considered by Einstein.

Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:51 GMT
Dear Georgina , Time is a synonym for universal, total movement of space, which is matter. Your soup forever bubbling and boiling. We do not see the space that is in a state of physical vacuum, it is transparent as glass, but we see particles that have merged in the body. Corpuscles also created from space, which is matter and which rotates in the corpuscle. The rotation creates a centrifugal acceleration. Flux of a vector of this acceleration is mass. Multiply any mass on the gravitational constant and you get the value of the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration. Multiply the mass by the square of the speed of light, and you will get the energy that is accumulated in the corpuscle in the movement of space, which is matter.

I was also against Einstein, but then I realized that all the paradoxes arise from the inertial reference systems with infinitely long numerical axes. If you take the inertial frame with an infinitely small numeric axes, it turns out all good. Nothing wrong with that in them time stops, no, because they are infinitely small.

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 14:08 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 17:20 GMT
Dear Stephen Anderson, your comment is similar to a work of art. You write like Shakespeare.

I answer briefly on three points, as they are seen in New Cartesian Physics.

1. The Sun thermonuclear reactions are intermediate reactions. There stands out energy of rotation of the solar system.

2. The interaction no between space and matter, so as space is matter.

3. The possibility of evolved optimization inherent in the structure of physical space

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share



DIOGENES AYBAR wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Dizhechko;

I have read your essay on the New Cartesian Physics. I agree with you that modern physics is based on mathematical solutions to hypothesis that lead to results that could be interpreted in many ways. And it is true that those hypotheis lack foundation in reality.

Your proposal has been a litle bit dificult for me to grasp; I hope we could discuss it further.

Best wishes;

Diogenes

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jack Hamilton James wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 23:00 GMT
Thanks Dizhechko for your kind comments.

Descartes dualism concerned the mind/soul/ghost vs.matter/machine. If we tie matter to space how does this resolve the mind/soul/ghost relation? I think you offer very interesting ideas and rate your effort well. I am glad you find solace in your theories and get rewards from them after living such a long life during an amazing period of human history.

Thanks again,

Jack

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 23:15 GMT
Thank you, Jack, for your kind words. my dream came true in the form of a New Cartesian Physics . I'm here to convince everyone to use the principle of identity of space and matter to develop a theory of everything.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 10:56 GMT
Dear Boris,

Very strong and deep ideas for overcoming the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. Yes, indeed today in science a neo-Cartesian revolution is needed to create new philosophical bases of knowledge.   I understand it as the Ontological revolution. Especially important is the competition of ideas in cosmology . Pavel Florensky made a good conclusion, which is topical for physicists and mathematicians: "Мы повторяем: миропонимание — пространствопонимание./ We repeat: world understanding is spaceunderstanding." … Physicists and poets should have a single picture of the Universum as an holistic generating process, filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E. Husserl).

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 11:50 GMT
Yes, Vladimir, for a long time believed that the Foundation for fundamental theories is matter, a mandatory attribute which was mass. Once there was a formula of mass – energy equivalence, which has revolutionized the field of high energy about the matter rarely began to remember and physics has lost the Foundation. Often began to use the assertion that matter exists in space and in time , which justifies the concept of space-time. The principle of identity of space and matter Descartes negate such an equalization of these two concepts and allows us to speak about what the space is moving. Time is a synonym for universal total movement.

Bookmark and Share



Brajesh Mishra wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 05:44 GMT
Dear Boris,

Thanks for appreciating my essay The Mysterious “Fundamental” ( https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2998 )

As suggested by you I have tried to get familiar with the New Cartesian Physics. I am impressed with the explanation about SPACE and TIME.

Whether this explanation about the Nature becomes THE Fundamental theory, or gets treated as one of the explanation, is ultimately limited to perception, imagination and the state of knowledge of the OBSERVER / Human species in this case. The current state of knowledge, we human possess, is lacking in many ways which I have tried to delve in my essay.

Best Wishes.

Brajesh Mishra

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jouko Harri Tiainen wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 09:33 GMT
Yes it is obvious as you say --- too much of modern physics is based on "over the top" maths, and too many solutions are just mathematical results not physics interpretations. I have to say I can see many common threads and ideas with Edwin's essay. Also the basis of modern physics isn't based on a good philosophical foundation so I can see where you are coming from in your essay.

Impressive results I will be reading your essay again and again over the next few weeks to understand it totally.

I hope you do very well in the competition a great essay. Yours Harri. I have rated it highly.

If you have time have a look at my essay https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3133

Yours Harri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 14:26 GMT
Dear Jouko Tiainen Harri, the speed of light as the imaginary unit is very interesting, I bet 10. But I think you don't need to associate a complex number with the geometry of Minkowski is interesting only from an analytical point of view, but not physical. In New Cartesian Physics is the imaginary unit used as an operator of rotation of the radius vector 90 degrees, the square of the imaginary unit turns the radius-vector by 180 degrees. Thus, where the formula is the imaginary unit, we observe a rotation.

New Cartesian Physics needs your support to develop further. Visit my page and give your assessment there.

I hope that you are interested in her ideas.

FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share



Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 02:31 GMT
Hello Boris,

I enjoyed your comment to the effect that we ‘need to break away from real life and go into a virtual world which allows everyone to create their fantasies on the subject of modern physics.’ Many have done to so, to the effect of making the discipline of physics much less disciplined.

I concur with you that ‘the Foundation of physics was originally based upon (the search for) truth, entirely covering the whole real world” The apparent absence of absolute truth should not deter us from seeking relative truth when to do so benefits mankind.

The fragmentation of physics and mathematics are overriding and undermining any prospects of achieving the harmonic integration of systems.

I suspect that Rene Descartes’ perceptions of physics were last time that the discipline has been truly disciplined. Looking backwards, perhaps that is the place from which we should begin again to search for new directions.

Concerning your statement that the ‘Pressure of [vacuum in] space is the cause of all movements occurring in the real world’; in matter we find an exhibition of defiance against vacuum (the predominant constituent of the cosmos), the exception that proves the rule. What is the rule? The rule is that vacuum abhors nature, and flows to fill its absence. We are players in a kind of push-me-pull-you game that we misinterpret from the earth as a gravitational ‘pull’ but which when seen from outer space would be recognizable as a ‘push’.

Keep sharpening your focus and your pencils I believe that you are going down the right road. itsinmybook.com

Thank you and best wishes Boris,

Gary

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 03:27 GMT
Thank you Gary for your kind words. You great entered the New Cartesian Physics in his scientific picture of the world.

Boris

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 13:39 GMT
Dear Boris Dizhechko,

Thanks for visiting my Essay page and for intervening in my conversation with Albert Einstein.

I find your Essay very nice. In fact, I have always been a great estimator of Rene Descartes. In particular, I find very interesting the connection between the Lorentz transformations and the probability density because it links classical to quantum physics. Did you attempt to submit your ideas to some specialist journal?

In any case, this is an entertaining Essay, deserving my high score.

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 14:22 GMT
Dear Christian Corda, thanks for the kind words. I here urge all researchers to remember the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes to develop his theory only by common efforts taking into account the achievements of modern science

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share



Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 05:41 GMT
I too am a big fan of Descartes and Cartesian space and time are the foundations of mainstream science. So it is not surprising that people are uncomfortable with setting space and time aside in favor of things like matter and action. Our language, after all, is based on space and time and we have a very difficult time getting beyond space and time.

My notion is that discrete matter and action are actually the fundamental basis of reality and the decay of phase entanglement is what drives and unites all force. Since matter decays and force expands, star motion results in a extra vector force called gravitization. Analogous to magnetization due to the motion of charge, gravitization is due to the motion of decaying matter.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 13:02 GMT
The consciousness of the people resists the recognition of the identity of space and matter Descartes, because they used to think that I live in an empty space – it is convenient for them. While there was no reason to think otherwise. However, there will come a time when the level of education of the people will depend on their understanding of this identity. This requires the necessity to eliminate the difficulties in science. Fundamental should save our thinking, i.e. to be simple and straightforward. For a long time believed that the Foundation for fundamental theories is matter, the amount of which is measured by mass. Once there was a formula of mass – energy equivalence, and mass lost the status of a value characterizing the amount of matter, about it rarely began to remember and physics has lost the Foundation. Any theory of everything is created in such circumstances would not be fundamental. The principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, according to which physical space is matter and matter is space that moves, gives us the Foundation for fundamental theories.

Bookmark and Share



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.