Dear George Kirakosyan,,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

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

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible "doubtless picture of reality."

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

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

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Andrew

I can only applaud your true remarks, as we are obligated do not deceiving ourselves, before teaching something to others!

Really Good essay George Kirakosyan,

You have very nicely analyzed the present day situation. You are exactly correct CORRECT about the SR and GR. NO new observation or NO experimental results are considered. Take the case of Superluminal neutrinos in case of SR, and many experimental verification failures of GR. If there is any theory like Dynamic Universe Model explains ALL such results, MAIN STREAM Scientists don't bother about it, NO SUPPORT of any sort from any person is visible forget financial support. Very sorrow state of affairs.

Your observation is exactly correct about the HIGG's boson. .... Your own words ..." I only think to myself; how and for what purpose this new particle, which is busted practically at the same moment as it is born, will be useful, when there are more than ten thousands of different unstable particles as well as some bosons among them? ".... Hats off to you...

Dear Gupta!

Many thanks for your great opinion.

I am just happy to see that we are not alone in our views!

Maybe in any time people will be realized that the way of natural thinking is more preferable in science than any beautiful creativity! Now I am starting to study your work (with pleasure!) I will tell you about it after some time.

I suggest you to read M-r Andrew Scott's article where I find very costly remarks!

With best wishes!

Dear George Kirakosyan,

Your essay provoked me to read a couple of your papers in the references section, the one on modeling the electron and the one on substance as spin-vortex. I am not competent to judge their ultimate merit, but I very much appreciated the method of approach. The notion of substance as a arising from a spin-vortex in a field simply mirrors dynamics that are apparent in the universe at vastly different scales i.e. solitons, hydrodynamic quantum analogues and turbulence modeling. To my mind it suggests a deeply rooted, underlying cosmological principle. I hope you have a chance to read my yet to emerge essay which touches on that notion.

To judge from your essay, your views are counter current with the mainstream and that is causing considerable frustration. I certainly wish for you a quiet eddy free from vexation in which your ideas can grow in substance and recognition.

Best, Don Foster

    Thank you Dear Foster for the flattering words.

    Unfortunately, you are right; we are not so much here, but we need do our job!

    Of course, I can read your article as it will be, let me know.

    Dear Vladimir

    I welcome your article as a professional and serious work. For me personally, it is very important that you are well aware of the global crisis of our time, which seems to almost in all spheres of human activity. Well I try to understand the deep meaning of your work to evaluate it by its significance.

    Best wishes

    George

    Thanks for these interesting ideas. I think one important reason to magic in mathematics is the frame of reference. We see development in aa backwards perspective. We see how Maxwell transformed Faradays work to mathematics but we do not see how Faraday worked hard his whole life and invented electric motors and generators and transformers. We see Kepler shifting from circle to ellipse but not Tycho Brahe to invent instruments and building observatory under ground level and work his whole life on the same issue.

    John-Erik Persson

      5 days later

      Dear John-Erik

      Sorry! I was a little busy. Just now I seen your post and have read your kindly words on my work. Thank you!

      Now I start read your "tragedy" with interest - as we really have faced to biggest tragedy!

      I will return soon with my opinion, as I felt it may to interest you.

      Best wishes

      Dear George Kirakosyan, I agree with your essay.

      Today, the official science is not able to adapt to the rapidly changing of the international situation in science and technology.

      The modern theoretical physics as a whole is characterized by exaggerated mathematization, a deliberate refusal to find the cause and the essential explanations, as a conscious rejection of spatial models and, as a consequence, the lack of "understanding" in the conventional (ie non-philosophical) sense.

      People cannot and do not want to believe in the doctrine that no one understands, even his followers.

      I have carefully considered these questions in my article "In Defense of Science"

      http://www.rusnor.org/pubs/articles/10537.htm

        Dear professor!

        Thank you very much for your opinion and kindly words on my work.

        These are especially significant for me as one experienced scientist and serious person who are able to deeply understanding what is going on in the present fundamental science.

        I seen some incognito "gentleman" initially have evaluated your work by one fatty 1! It is simply outrageously meanness in my view, which cannot have anything common with the objective criticism and to science at all! So, we must seriously thinking ourselves - who and on what purpose does such things?

        I would say that your article seems to me as an impressive - serious research work that must to deserve the attention of specialists in this area. I will study your works in good time, and then we can exchanging with our viewpoints.

        With all best wishes

        George Рљ. (Р"еоргий Киракосян)

        George, I laughed (in a good way) when I read this line of your paper because it is so true:

        "I only think to myself; how and for what purpose this new particle, which is busted practically at the same moment as it is born, will be useful, when there are more than ten thousands of different unstable particles as well as some bosons among them? Then, what kind of significant shift it can give, excluding high awards and short euphoria?"

        You went on to suggest a fundamental particle which I also believe will be proven one day. I think you mention the electron as a potential candidate, but I'd argue for the neutrino since it's a known particle that has a much smaller rest energy than the electron. My colleagues and I did some work on this subject and posted it as a submission for this contest if you are interested to read our findings.

        Regards,

        Jeff

          Dear Jeff,

          Your comment really is beautiful, thank you so much - our command becomes more!

          Previously I can say that I have nothing against to neutrino, the electron is preferable because it is always under our hands (I mean it is much easy to detect and to study). Moreover, the neutrino does not have charge and mag. momentum that makes so much difficult to catch and to identify it. Principally, if we can to explain what is any particle on a 100% then we can understand almost everything!

          I will study your work and to return again after short time!

          Best wishes!

          George

          Dear Wilhelmus,

          I am happy to welcome you in FQXi contest again with your nice essay. It is right that we have talking about of some different subjects in our works, however I did not seen the contradictions in ours approaches - I hope my work can be interesting to you.

          Best wishes!

            Dear Jeff Yee

            I have study your work (Particle energy .... in vixra.org).

            I am very impressed with your huge work and I find very right things there, concerning to a wave-field common essence of everything. Particularly, You correctly have explained the double slit interference of particles (by the way it is much coincide with the mine!) and many useful things also are there.

            However, I am forced to say some my regrets also. The standing wave concept of particles is really are very right and this will become much more productive for you if you will start from VORTEX NATURE of field and waves (with your phenomenal ability to working!) I just friendly recommend you carefully to study my works (not now, of course). I think your level will allow you to catch some very necessary trifles from there in short time. Then you can to develop your nice ideas more successfully!

            Good wishes!

            Dear George

            I have read with great interest your essay.

            In your conclusion you mention that physical laws are the traffic signs of our perceived reality. It may seem so, but my perception is that any LAW is just valid untill NOW, in the future quite other forms of what seems the basic of reality may be valid, nad then only for the new coming NOW mement.

            The Laws that we are experiencing in our collective memories are also emergent phenomenae, so they can change any NOW moment.

            best regards

            Wilhelmus

            My dear Wilhelmus,

            I can be with you completely agree, when I see how growing my grandchildren in the other world than it has been in our time.

            I can also think that maybe the crocodile can be born from the chiken eggs with the time! However, I never can think that energy preservation law, or the value of pi (3,14 ...), can be changeable, in the past, or in the future.

            I have initially put high score on your essay because it is informative and written just beautiful! Excuse me if something is not that!

            Best wishes

            Hello nMr Kirakosyan,

            I liked your essay.I liked also how you utilise the occam razor about our foundamentals.And It is well said about the p^rimordial essence of particles.Personally it is the gravitation the chief orchestra for me.Photons are not the only one piece of puzzle when we consider an entropical infinity sendenig informations of évolution.The center os our universe is not an immense star,a BH in the cold implying then gravitational aether seems more logic.This cold balancing this thermo....God does not play at dices after all :) I am wishing you all the best in this contest,good luck.

            Hello M-r Steve,

            Many thanks for kindly words and good opinion!

            Do you have your own essay? I did not find it in the list.

            Best wishes