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

            Dear George,

            In your emergent reality (the one you are experiencing right now) and in our collective NOW memory, energy preservation and pi are stable,. Changing of life-line may reveal that they may be changing, when you change life lines you are not aware of the specific changes.

            I thank you for your rating, but it is best not to talk about in the threads I think.

            best regards

            Wilhelmus

            Dear George Kirakosyan,

            I followed your essay to your viXra 'wave-vortex' paper and very much appreciate your work in both. I fully agree with "thinkers by own brains" versus "followers of holy instructions", as you will see if you read my essay. Like Lindsay in your 2016 paper, we agree that science is "comprehension of the essence of things by thinking".

            I agree with you that our century-old methodology was adopted politically, and is maintained politically, despite inconsistencies and underdetermination issues. I address aspects of this in my essay, in terms of projections on reality which, as you point out, do not similarly confuse economists, businessmen, engineers, 'who also use math in their daily jobs'. Instead (some) physicists "elevate their mathematical apparatus to a mystical level." Yes...'serious intellectual problems'. You remind us that "many indisputable founders of physics...have preferred to go away from "official" science." There is no sensible answer to your question about the Higgs; and you are correct about the electron! Both c,h and inter-transmutation of particles support your thesis that all kinds of particles are formed from the same substance.

            So I agree with most of your essay and much of your viXra paper and I enjoyed reading them. I invite you to read my essay.

            Best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Dear Eugene,

              Thank you for attention,

              I am always looking to find my like-minded that is why I am happy with your message.

              Of course, I will read your work and I will share with my view, in short time.

              Best wishes

              You are welcome Mr Kirakosyan,

              I liked your general ideas.

              No I have not made this contest like the last past 8 years.I learn I imrpove my theory of spherisation with quant and cosm 3D sphères Inside the Sphere and equation E=mc²+ml².I have studied and learnt so much here n this wonderful transparent Platform.I am a nursery man for plants, flowers,I have been obliged to learn things that I didn't know.I evolve simpkly and optimise my works.I must formalise the spherical geometrical algebras and this spherisation.It is not easy, I learn maths and physics in détails.I try to respect our postulates and foundamentals.

              Best and good luck in this contest :)

              George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 08:47 GMT

              Dear Eugene,

              I have read your work (as we usually say this, after of brief checking the material!)

              I shall express my impression how you are hard worker, and hope you can understand that I just cannot somewhat to study the big volume of your rich references right now.

              However, I can surely think already that you have presented one of nice work in the contest.

              It is well formatted, the meaningful content is well narrated, and, which is more significantly to me, it seems earnestly by itself. I mean the author does not try to convince others something such, when he is himself not convinced in that matter.

              I think also that we not need talk about significance of math, of natural laws, or about of fundamental principles because it will be the repetition of ours works what we know already and mainly we can be agree each to other, as I believe from your comment.

              Coming to a contest question, we (or, me only) can be agreeing just, that the question is formulated somewhat not so correct (subtly speaking!) Therefore, we (or, me only) have no right to spend the time on this, but we initially should to decide for ourselves that this task hardly could have some perspective. We do not know even the nature of force that presses to us in our chair, as well as how is constructed the nucleons etc. and meantime we hope to explain how working our brain! Excuse me, I never will try do this, even I have there some definitely ideas on this matter. I will never sound on this matter, as I am sure this will empty occupation, as nobody can prove it, to accept it, or use it etc. I would say the things should have their time, - first need to build the ground floor, then next ones. Maybe I am so critical, but we do not have the real chance to solve such category of questions, as we do not have even the real basic natural science for today ....

              Your essay is really highly appreciable in my view!

              George,

              Many thanks for an enjoyable and insightful essay.

              You are very correct regarding the use of units in calculations. I am an engineer by education. One of the first things we are taught is to carry dimensional units through calculations. That keeps us from making major mistakes and it forces us to think about what we are doing when things appear to be dissimilar.

              I certainly see similarities with the bee on the window ... it simply cannot understand why it cannot pass through.

              I share your puzzlement regarding the Higgs Boson ... I am fairly sure there are few if any giant particle accelerators in the universe to create such things. In my simple thinking, the only particles worthy of great study are the proton, electron, and neutron since they are STABLE. Of course, the reason that folks want to create such particles is to study the associated fields. However, rather than studying the Higgs, it seems to me a better use of resources to figure out why a solitary neutron decays with a half-life of 14 minutes.

              Your notions for an electron and proton are interesting. In fact, they are somewhat similar to my own.

              Best Regards and Good Luck,

              Gary Simpson