CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 17:12 GMT
Essay AbstractThe 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 BioDizhechko 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
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 21:43 GMT
Hi Boris
As usualy, very good essay. Score 9.
Regards
Branko
post approved
Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 04:13 GMT
[ (https://fqxi.org/)]New Cartesian Physics[/ (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2999)]
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"?
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.
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
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 18:17 GMT
Well, Joe, the space we call the endless surface. In mathematics, it is acceptable if it gives new knowledge
hide replies
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 23:05 GMT
Zdrastavite Boris Dizhechko
Thank you , Cpasibo esyo ras for remembering me and posting on my essay …!
Thank you for saying that the idea of dynamic Universe model is very good.
You said… “However, you don't use the fundamental principle of Descartes's about identity of space and matter, which allows to see that the Sun releases energy of rotation of the...
view entire post
Zdrastavite Boris Dizhechko
Thank you , Cpasibo esyo ras for remembering me and posting on my essay …!
Thank you for saying that the idea of dynamic Universe model is very good.
You said… “However, you don't use the fundamental principle of Descartes's about identity of space and matter, which allows to see that the Sun releases energy of rotation of the Galaxy…”
Descartes rejected the splitting of corporeal substance into matter and form; second, he rejected any appeal to final ends, divine or natural, in explaining natural phenomena.[15] In his theology, he insists on the absolute freedom of God's act of creation…… Says present day wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
You said…….”If you say that photons falling on a massive body, then I say that on the Sun falls space, which according to Descartes is matter and there is transformed into corpuscles.”
Dynamic Universe Model says the frequency shift happens when EM radiation goes grazingly …. Not when photons fall into massive body.
You said …… “In addition, I showed that the formula of mass - energy equivalence is derived from the existence of the pressure of the Universe. In General, I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity. Visit my essay”
I will visit… and post again… By the way…………………
Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
post approved
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 04:01 GMT
Dear Boris Dizhechko,
Thank you very much for all the support, I don’t know how to repay, except reciprocating your help….
Spacibo vam balshoya
Best Regards
=snp
post approved
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:21 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists
This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,
FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist 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.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
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
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 04:42 GMT
[/https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2999]
Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 06:54 GMT
Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 07:06 GMT
Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 07:09 GMT
Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 07:24 GMT
hide replies
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
peter cameron wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:20 GMT
Hello Boris,
Is there a wavefunction in your model?
Pete
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
adel sadeq replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 16:09 GMT
I have not put myself above anybody. I just did good science by analyzing what was written by others plus all the observations and came up with a POSSIBLE solution to the problem that is the subject of this contest with more than hundred people, all with different view.
report post as inappropriate
Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 21:38 GMT
Descartes is a great philosopher, physicist and mathematician, whose ideas are in demand so far. I want to show that Newton was wrong when he said that he sees further him, as he stands on his shoulders. In fact, he saw only near. Cartesian principle of the identity of space and matter is fundamental, capable of generalizing modern physics into the theory of everything.
hide replies
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.
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
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
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.
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
report post as inappropriate
corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 09:08 GMT
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
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
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.
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
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 .
Maxim Yurievich Khlopov wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 11:34 GMT
Dear Boris Semyonovich,
Your new-Cartesian radicalism definitely deserves attention and interest.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 00:58 GMT
Boris,
We are a part of our context. There is no more dualism between the organism and the ecosystem, than between the mind and the body. It is just that our minds function by freezing moments, then making distinctions and judgements. Information is much more about the differences, than the continuities. Then we focus on the most distinct, so it is any wonder nothing seems to fit together, when we look at it most closely, but it all just flows along, when we are just being there and taking it in?
We are particles of focus in a field of consciousness.
report post as inappropriate
Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 03:45 GMT
John,
We are part of the space, which for Descartes is a matter. No more dualism between matter and space, between mind and body. Consciousness arises when a body appears the ability to create in space the image of the external world and to remember him for discernment and judgment. In the center of this image of the external world is the body that created it and which is actively positioning itself to prolong its existence.
Sincerely, Boris.
John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 11:35 GMT
Boris,
Thank you very Much! That gave me a 7, which logically gives me a lot more readers. I have to say I didn't enter this contest with any intentions, other than participating in the discussions. Which should be evident in my lack of editing. Suffice to say, I'm used to not being taken seriously, yet various people have liked the point, given my score and that I know a got a few down votes to lower it.
I really did like your essential argument and understand Decartes is a big influence, but it does fuzz the observation a bit, at least for me, not being as big a fan of him. Consequently I couldn't make it a quid pro quo and give you a ten, but considered it worth a nine.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Author Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 14:33 GMT
Thank you Joe for the appreciation of the New Cartesian Physics. That means I have to improve it.
Boris Dizhechko
hide replies
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
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
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
minebest regards
Wilhelmus de Wilde
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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 SemyonovichI wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.