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.

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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**John-Erik Persson**: *on* 3/13/18 at 18:22pm UTC, wrote Pentcho Valev You may be interested in my last blog at: blog Regards...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 2/23/18 at 19:34pm UTC, wrote Pentcho, You should recall you don't have to convince me! Fact is I...

**Pentcho Valev**: *on* 2/22/18 at 19:45pm UTC, wrote Peter, "Are our axioms correct?" Unfortunately, the constancy of the...

**George Kirakosyan**: *on* 2/22/18 at 17:44pm UTC, wrote Hello dear Pentcho, I recognized you from many debates and blogs as an...

**Steven Andresen**: *on* 2/22/18 at 8:41am UTC, wrote Dear Pentcho If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

**Vladimir Fedorov**: *on* 2/22/18 at 7:24am UTC, wrote Dear Pentcho, I highly estimate you short essay exelent. It is so close...

**Don Limuti**: *on* 2/18/18 at 22:57pm UTC, wrote Hi Pentcho, Sometimes a short to the point essay is better than a long...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 2/16/18 at 21:56pm UTC, wrote Pentcho, Quite brilliant. However ....are there not more questions?: Are...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Robert McEachern**: ""At the risk of stroking physicists’ egos, physics is hard" But every..."
*in* Will A.I. Take Over...

**George Musser**: "Imagine you could feed the data of the world into a computer and have it..."
*in* Will A.I. Take Over...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Joe it is wonderful this,so you are going to have a nobel prize in..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Robert McEachern**: ""I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant." It is not. It is..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

**Steve Dufourny**: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..."
*in* Mass–Energy Equivalence...

**Steve Dufourny**: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?"
*in* Mass–Energy Equivalence...

**Georgina Woodward**: "I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

**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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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

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.

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.

FQXi FORUM

October 17, 2019

CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]

TOPIC: What Is Fundamental in Fundamental Physics? by Pentcho Valev [refresh]

TOPIC: What Is Fundamental in Fundamental Physics? by Pentcho Valev [refresh]

If fundamental physics can be defined as axiomatic (deductive), then obviously the axioms are fundamental.

Former experimentalist, now obsessed with theoretical physics - relativity and thermodynamics.

Dear Pentcho

Short, but meaningful. You nailed it with the quote from Einstein, and your follow-up was right on.

Best wishes,

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Short, but meaningful. You nailed it with the quote from Einstein, and your follow-up was right on.

Best wishes,

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Pentcho Valev,

Yours is short and sweet and you lay the credit and the blame where it belongs:*the axioms*. I know you have interest in relativity, so I hope you might enjoy my analysis of Einstein's special relativity axioms. I would appreciate any comments you might have.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Yours is short and sweet and you lay the credit and the blame where it belongs:

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho,

Short and sweet. Your statements are true. Nonetheless, I am disappointed. I was hoping for quite a bit more from you. It is one thing to identify what is wrong. It is another to offer a better solution. A forum such as FQXi is the perfect place for those alternative solutions.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Short and sweet. Your statements are true. Nonetheless, I am disappointed. I was hoping for quite a bit more from you. It is one thing to identify what is wrong. It is another to offer a better solution. A forum such as FQXi is the perfect place for those alternative solutions.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

This is the maximum possible heresy, Gary. In the 2012 contest I tried to introduce the following hypothesis:

The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to the starting wavelength (at emission): λ' = λ. Therefore, in accordance with the formula f = c/λ, any measurement of the frequency shift is in fact a measurement of the shift in the speed of light.

Things got nightmarish and I had to withdraw my essay.

Pentcho

The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to the starting wavelength (at emission): λ' = λ. Therefore, in accordance with the formula f = c/λ, any measurement of the frequency shift is in fact a measurement of the shift in the speed of light.

Things got nightmarish and I had to withdraw my essay.

Pentcho

Pentcho,

I sounds to me like you gave up too easily.

FYI, Dr. Klingman has revisited the Hertz Equations to demonstrate that they are consistent under Galilean Transform.

Also, I have shown (in a comment to Dr. Klingman) that a velocity quaternion

V = c + v

where c is a scalar and v is a vector

will produce the relativistic energy equation.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

I sounds to me like you gave up too easily.

FYI, Dr. Klingman has revisited the Hertz Equations to demonstrate that they are consistent under Galilean Transform.

Also, I have shown (in a comment to Dr. Klingman) that a velocity quaternion

V = c + v

where c is a scalar and v is a vector

will produce the relativistic energy equation.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Dear Pentcho,

I completely agree with you. One question: Can there be a major axiom - "Axiom of axioms"?

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I completely agree with you. One question: Can there be a major axiom - "Axiom of axioms"?

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vladimir,

"Can there be a major axiom - "Axiom of axioms"?"

I don't think so but still the answer to your question could be "yes", in an unexpected sense. There is a false axiom which, if introduced, can kill the whole branch of science called "physics". I'm not going to discuss this here - just a few quotations which, implicitly, do lead to this conclusion:

"The whole of...

view entire post

"Can there be a major axiom - "Axiom of axioms"?"

I don't think so but still the answer to your question could be "yes", in an unexpected sense. There is a false axiom which, if introduced, can kill the whole branch of science called "physics". I'm not going to discuss this here - just a few quotations which, implicitly, do lead to this conclusion:

"The whole of...

view entire post

Vladimir,

Every expert knows the barber paradox and how it shocked Frege.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Every expert knows the barber paradox and how it shocked Frege.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Pencho,

It looks like an essay is not finished.

The essay contains meaningful Einstein quotation without any references.

Regards,

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

It looks like an essay is not finished.

The essay contains meaningful Einstein quotation without any references.

Regards,

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

Dear Pentcho,

Very nice essay, short but clear and informative about the central role of the axioms. I think it may be a good idea that the readers of my essay will read yours first. Well done!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica, Indra's net

report post as inappropriate

Very nice essay, short but clear and informative about the central role of the axioms. I think it may be a good idea that the readers of my essay will read yours first. Well done!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica, Indra's net

report post as inappropriate

Dear Cristinel Stoica,

Pentcho Valev has a record of collecting quotes that are pointing to poorly understood issues rather than seriously contributing own reasoning.

Here he lazily agrees with Hilbert's failed attempt to not just fabricate arbitrarily construced axioms like NBG, ZFC, etc. in mathematics but also to axiomize physics.

I consider it more demanding work with little chance of reward to look for the primary embedding of chosen axioms into elementary logics from human perspective.

Katz made me aware of an ignored by mathematicians decisive contradiction between the logical and the mathematical axiom of infinity.

I tried to explain why I consider the assumptions causality and universal reality indispensable and so far confirmed by experience ones.

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev has a record of collecting quotes that are pointing to poorly understood issues rather than seriously contributing own reasoning.

Here he lazily agrees with Hilbert's failed attempt to not just fabricate arbitrarily construced axioms like NBG, ZFC, etc. in mathematics but also to axiomize physics.

I consider it more demanding work with little chance of reward to look for the primary embedding of chosen axioms into elementary logics from human perspective.

Katz made me aware of an ignored by mathematicians decisive contradiction between the logical and the mathematical axiom of infinity.

I tried to explain why I consider the assumptions causality and universal reality indispensable and so far confirmed by experience ones.

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

As usual, mathematicians will declare me wrong. The mathematical infinity was introduced by Leibniz and Bernoulli as something relative. Belonging set theory managed to hide the decisive contradiction to the compelling and older Archimedian reasoning: "There is no upper limit to counting".

The so called axiom of infinity is just seemingly the same.

The 7th axiom of ZFC claims:

"There is a set U with the property 0 € U, A € U ==> A U {A} € U"

The property correctly describes the Archimedian reasoning.

What Dedekind called an axiom is hidden in the claim "There is a set U" in combination with the seven other intentionally fabricated axioms of ZFC.

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

The so called axiom of infinity is just seemingly the same.

The 7th axiom of ZFC claims:

"There is a set U with the property 0 € U, A € U ==> A U {A} € U"

The property correctly describes the Archimedian reasoning.

What Dedekind called an axiom is hidden in the claim "There is a set U" in combination with the seven other intentionally fabricated axioms of ZFC.

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

> "Pentcho Valev has a record of collecting quotes that are pointing to poorly understood issues rather than seriously contributing own reasoning."

I don't judge essays by the previous achievements of their authors. You are free to express your own judgement and rate the essay accordingly. What I appreciated was the simplicity of the argument, which may somehow be seen as implying that the contest's theme has a well established answer. I think it is far from being established, but I think it is good to have an essay presenting this position in a clear and simple way.

> "Here he lazily agrees with Hilbert's failed attempt [...] to axiomize physics."

I didn't notice any reference to Hilbert's 1928 program, only to Einstein 1920.

Was Hilbert's program a failed attempt? Yes and No. Yes, if we expect from axiomatics and formal proof (1) to allow one to give a finite length proof or disproof of any possible proposition that can be wrote in that system, and (2) to prove its own self-consistency. These won't work, as proved by Gödel. But axiomatics is not a failure, because each axiomatic theory can prove an infinite number of propositions in that system. The human reason can't go beyond this infinite anyway, so this may be enough, but even if this is not enough, it is the best we can have as finite beings. The same limitations apply to any sort of explanation we can construct using words. It's not a failure and it's not worthless. And Pentcho didn't make any controversial claims about (1) and (2).

This being said, I am happy for his interest, and also for your interest in axiomatics and in Dedeking's views about set theory, and I don't see a problem here :)

Best wishes,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

> "Pentcho Valev has a record of collecting quotes that are pointing to poorly understood issues rather than seriously contributing own reasoning."

I don't judge essays by the previous achievements of their authors. You are free to express your own judgement and rate the essay accordingly. What I appreciated was the simplicity of the argument, which may somehow be seen as implying that the contest's theme has a well established answer. I think it is far from being established, but I think it is good to have an essay presenting this position in a clear and simple way.

> "Here he lazily agrees with Hilbert's failed attempt [...] to axiomize physics."

I didn't notice any reference to Hilbert's 1928 program, only to Einstein 1920.

Was Hilbert's program a failed attempt? Yes and No. Yes, if we expect from axiomatics and formal proof (1) to allow one to give a finite length proof or disproof of any possible proposition that can be wrote in that system, and (2) to prove its own self-consistency. These won't work, as proved by Gödel. But axiomatics is not a failure, because each axiomatic theory can prove an infinite number of propositions in that system. The human reason can't go beyond this infinite anyway, so this may be enough, but even if this is not enough, it is the best we can have as finite beings. The same limitations apply to any sort of explanation we can construct using words. It's not a failure and it's not worthless. And Pentcho didn't make any controversial claims about (1) and (2).

This being said, I am happy for his interest, and also for your interest in axiomatics and in Dedeking's views about set theory, and I don't see a problem here :)

Best wishes,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica wrote: "the simplicity of the argument, which may somehow be seen as implying that the contest's theme has a well established answer. I think it is far from being established"

I agree, and this would have become evident if I had gone further and asked the following questions:

Which of the theories in modern physics are axiomatic?

Are the non-axiomatic theories not even wrong, as I suggest in the essay?

I decided to avoid this discussion - laziness perhaps.

Thanks, Cristi, for the good words.

Pentcho

I agree, and this would have become evident if I had gone further and asked the following questions:

Which of the theories in modern physics are axiomatic?

Are the non-axiomatic theories not even wrong, as I suggest in the essay?

I decided to avoid this discussion - laziness perhaps.

Thanks, Cristi, for the good words.

Pentcho

Prof Pentcho Valev

Very nice thinking almost parallel with Dynamic Universe Model...."The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to the starting wavelength (at emission): λ' = λ. Therefore, in accordance with the formula f = c/λ, any measurement of the frequency shift is in fact a measurement of the shift in the speed of light."..............

Here in my essay energy to...

view entire post

Very nice thinking almost parallel with Dynamic Universe Model...."The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to the starting wavelength (at emission): λ' = λ. Therefore, in accordance with the formula f = c/λ, any measurement of the frequency shift is in fact a measurement of the shift in the speed of light."..............

Here in my essay energy to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho,

Quite brilliant. However ....are there not more questions?:

Are our axioms correct? or flawed, so must we not think better to correct them?

Do we need more fundamental axioms, then if so ..what?

I think we do! to both. So OK the current axioms are fundamental to doctrine, but are they preventing advancement by causing us to ignore the real ones not yet derived?

Anyway, top marks for concision (that's concise and precise I just invented that word)

Good to see you still active.

Peter

ps. If you don't like to be shocked and amazed don't read my essay, or Declan Traill's with the proof by way of computer code and CHSH >2 plot.

report post as inappropriate

Quite brilliant. However ....are there not more questions?:

Are our axioms correct? or flawed, so must we not think better to correct them?

Do we need more fundamental axioms, then if so ..what?

I think we do! to both. So OK the current axioms are fundamental to doctrine, but are they preventing advancement by causing us to ignore the real ones not yet derived?

Anyway, top marks for concision (that's concise and precise I just invented that word)

Good to see you still active.

Peter

ps. If you don't like to be shocked and amazed don't read my essay, or Declan Traill's with the proof by way of computer code and CHSH >2 plot.

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

"Are our axioms correct?"

Unfortunately, the constancy of the speed of light is false, and the whole of modern physics is based on it:

"The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity...

view entire post

"Are our axioms correct?"

Unfortunately, the constancy of the speed of light is false, and the whole of modern physics is based on it:

"The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity...

view entire post

Pentcho,

You should recall you don't have to convince me!

Fact is I think MOST of our axioms are wrong, flawed or incomplete.

This year I show falsifiably that QM is similarly wrong. Substitute complex OAM (Poincare REAL spherical momenta) for 'singlet superposed' nonsense and it all slots into place. See if you can follow the ontological sequence with 'deductive thought'!

Of course doctrinal physics will ensure it's denied entry to Academia.

I at least make the effort to assess & score all who read & comment intelligibly on mine so hope you can.

Very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

You should recall you don't have to convince me!

Fact is I think MOST of our axioms are wrong, flawed or incomplete.

This year I show falsifiably that QM is similarly wrong. Substitute complex OAM (Poincare REAL spherical momenta) for 'singlet superposed' nonsense and it all slots into place. See if you can follow the ontological sequence with 'deductive thought'!

Of course doctrinal physics will ensure it's denied entry to Academia.

I at least make the effort to assess & score all who read & comment intelligibly on mine so hope you can.

Very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hi Pentcho,

Sometimes a short to the point essay is better than a long word salad. I think you have done a superb job this time.

Let me know if you agree with the following: Mathematics is axiomatic. Most physicists consider physics axiomatic because it can be modeled by mathematics. This is not true (in many cases) and leads to a lot crap passing off as physics.

Right now we have two axioms in physics that are considered axiomatically true:

1. The speed of all objects is relative to the motion of the observer.

2. The speed of light is always the same irrespective of the motion of the observer.

The current response to this conflict of physics axioms is: Shut up and calculate. I believe that a possible way to remedy this is to reconsider what exactly is the ether (aka space-time).

Do check out my essay. It is not "the" answer, but I believe it goes in the right direction.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Sometimes a short to the point essay is better than a long word salad. I think you have done a superb job this time.

Let me know if you agree with the following: Mathematics is axiomatic. Most physicists consider physics axiomatic because it can be modeled by mathematics. This is not true (in many cases) and leads to a lot crap passing off as physics.

Right now we have two axioms in physics that are considered axiomatically true:

1. The speed of all objects is relative to the motion of the observer.

2. The speed of light is always the same irrespective of the motion of the observer.

The current response to this conflict of physics axioms is: Shut up and calculate. I believe that a possible way to remedy this is to reconsider what exactly is the ether (aka space-time).

Do check out my essay. It is not "the" answer, but I believe it goes in the right direction.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Dear Pentcho,

I highly estimate you short essay exelent.

It is so close to me. «at the initial stages of theorizing – don’t hesitate to exploit even the wildest idea – but the final version of your theory should be explicit about the axioms and the arguments. If not – e.g. if the axioms are missing and the equations are just guessed, not deduced – your theory is not even wrong».

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

report post as inappropriate

I highly estimate you short essay exelent.

It is so close to me. «at the initial stages of theorizing – don’t hesitate to exploit even the wildest idea – but the final version of your theory should be explicit about the axioms and the arguments. If not – e.g. if the axioms are missing and the equations are just guessed, not deduced – your theory is not even wrong».

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

report post as inappropriate

Dear Pentcho

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hello dear Pentcho,

I recognized you from many debates and blogs as an irreconcilable critic of modern physical science. Therefore, with great interest I opened your work and came to a great surprise - how it is short! Then, after reading, I said to myself - it's really quite a clear answer of question (not in the sense that you deserve the prize of course!) Whatever it is, I'm just bound to support you, which I did, because I believe that without cruel criticism it would be foolish to hope for the generation of truthful science. I hope you can check my work where also contains some criticism.

Best regards

George Kirakosyan

report post as inappropriate

I recognized you from many debates and blogs as an irreconcilable critic of modern physical science. Therefore, with great interest I opened your work and came to a great surprise - how it is short! Then, after reading, I said to myself - it's really quite a clear answer of question (not in the sense that you deserve the prize of course!) Whatever it is, I'm just bound to support you, which I did, because I believe that without cruel criticism it would be foolish to hope for the generation of truthful science. I hope you can check my work where also contains some criticism.

Best regards

George Kirakosyan

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev

You may be interested in my last blog at:

blog

Regards from John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

You may be interested in my last blog at:

blog

Regards from John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.