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

    Dear Harry

    I am thankful that you are with me! We must to join our efforts to push ahead what we believe are the right. I see one of important criterions of our rightness in that the different brains in the different times and in the different places may come to similar conclusions. So, I just felt myself very obligated to read your work to say something.

    About of decay of freely neutron you are fully right. I have tried to explain it and I even calculated its time, based on my model (you can find it in good time in my ,,Rethinking ... (I),, )

    I will answer you within short time!

    Good wishes

      Dear Gary,

      You have used the the complex vector representation and the Euler's beautiful formula in your attempts to describe proton, in this case. You have the definite success on this. It shows just that you are on the somewhat right way. I am very agree with you that the dynamics and harmony should be the base to understand the microcosm. By the way, the solutions of Maxwell's equations (in macrocosm) and Schrodinger's equations (in microcosm) with its different modifications correspond with this. The main questions however, has become there - how need to interpret these solutions, since a what of physical values must to put there as the this or that members of equations? That is why I am calling to put the ideas first before of math! You know of course the merits of Faradei as well as Nikola Tesla ..... who was very weak in math! So, the math does not disturb them to RIGHT THINKING and to find the right answers by the same! Then their job was continued by whom who was more well with math ....!

      So, I welcome your work and I will happy to help you.

      I wait that we can be agree each with others.

      Good wishes

      Dear Mr. Kirakosyan

      As a philosophical work, your essay is excellent. I agree with all your views. Especially, I would not have better described the situation with the Higgs Boson.

      About b) There may be an intentionally lack of understanding for political purposes (very smart).

      For example: when I read these essays, authors support very little dark matter. However, it is main stream theory.

      Best regards,

      Branko

      George,

      Good to hear from you on my string. Thanks for your comment.

      Yes I 'speed read' you essay once and found it excellent with some heartening agreement so marked down for a more thorough read. I've just pulled it up to the top of the pile!

      Best

      Peter

      George,

      OK, first I'm delighted to find, like me, you've avoided the pyres and stakes of outrageous fortune. Perhaps being ignored is as bad but we have strength of spirit! My (recently adopted) family motto is; "I have the strength of ten men as I am pure in heart!" It's so nice to converse with a kindred spirit.

      Now the essay. Well even had you not written one the literary genius, clarity, truth and insight of the abstract alone might be worth a 9!

      I'm no nuclear physicist but am excited by your finding; "We discovered new type of light excited nuclei with excited alpha particle inside. This nuclei are unstable, with emission of p and t Will this be published? or is it too new to pass the gatekeepers (armed guards!) of theory.

      How familiar are you with plasma?/Ions?/condensation of Fermion pairs? Do you agree the pairs may be identical just with opposite orientations? as with 'split' pairs in QM?

      I do hope you may take a rigorous look at the simple momenta pair identified in my essay and confirm my derivation of the orthogonal cos2 curves of QM. established physicist run screaming rather than look and bury their heads in the sand or even a dung pile!

      I'd also like to talk and think more about the 8-9Mev continuum energy recognised in nuclear physics. I think I referred to something similar in terms of the 'condensate', conceptually equivalent to Paul Dirac's 'new ether'. How 'recognised' is it and what is the interpretation. Any good links?

      Very well written and worth top marks.

      Very best wishes

      Peter

        OK, ignore or wipe out the above. I must stop reading so many at once! I made notes for both yours and Kozlowski and remembered my thought about yours but referred to the wrong ones! (Actually his is also quite interesting!) I'll do your proper post after a brain-break.

        best Peter

        Dear George ! Official science has become a decisive knowledge tool of the economic production process. This alienation process of science and its tools (e.g.maths) can lead to mindless constructions of artificial realities, reinforcing the total alienated value of its professional participants, i.e. there exists an existential difference between knowledge value for economic production/consumption and coping with real life. Maybe, a new Copernican shift will take place when exponential knowledge automation will free the scientific workers and scientific labor from mindless activities for increasing economic productivity.Take this a my reader response to your brilliant essay.. Best: stephen

        George,

        The first two paragraphs above apply, but I now realise you didn't suddenly become a nuclear physicist!

        Yes, I've opened many windows for bees and flies, only to be ignored or told with arrogance and indignation to leave them alone and not try to tell them where the route to joining with the universe lies! A great example of where science stands (mainly still!)

        Also great comments about the importance of the observer. You'll have seen I extend that to detectors, finding the final key to a Classical reproduction of QMs Cos2 curves in the cascade or 'avalanche' multiplication of the photodetectors themselves. Always self doubting I checked everywhere and found this effect already a key part of QCD!

        So I agree, cause and effect does work fine, the problem has been only our inadequate mental evolution. Can we really self-evolve fast enough?

        Applying my score made yours leapfrog mine but I had no compunction doing so.

        Very best

        Peter

        Dear George Kirakosyan

        Excellent essay, near to me in pursuit.

        «There is an actual opportunity to come to a high-grade realistic science by returning to natural thinking and objective scientific approaches».

        I think the most important for the theme of the contest is to solve the problems of causality in quantum mechanics -

        «I will refer only to the opinion of a respectful for me professor Lee Smolin, Ref. [4], who sees solution of arisen problems with QR in the opportunity to interpret quantum relations and phenomena based on cause-effect laws».

        However, let me disagree with your statement:

        «All kinds of particles are formed from the same primordial substance. The huge numbers of different unstable particles cannot represent any interest and perceptivity for study, because of their transient state and common physical essence».

        I believe that in the universe, each particle of interest and the prospects for research. Each particle has a role in the causation of quantum processes. Not stable particles with their transition states are nonlinear elements from nonideal medium of physical vacuum, where there are quantum processes due to non-linearity.

        In My essay it is shown that the using of mathematical abstractions and ideal properties of matter and fields in the description of physical reality leads to a lack of reasons for the ongoing processes, lead to the abstract particles, to pointless research of collapses, of infinities , of normalization, of calibrations, of clouds of probability and so on. The phenomenological laws and their abstract coefficients spread on everything systems unreasonably and are elevated to the rank of absolutes.

        This led me to the conclusion that the reason of self-organization systems of matter is quantum-parametric resonance and the formation of solitons.

        Kind regards,

        Vladimir Fedorov

        Thank you, Dear Vladimir Nikolayevich, for your kindly attention on my work and for favorable words.

        I have read your nice article also and fully agreed with you in many points. I especially like your vortex - toroidal structures that can form elementary particles. So, we can welcome each to other as realistically thinking engineers.

        Of course, we can have some disagreements also what we have actually. The matter is you are a mechanical engineer and I am a poor electrical engineer only. That is why we must always to fight on the question - which principles should be in the base of formation the primordial substance of matter - is this should be mechanical or the electrical?

        I see you are silently - intuitively inclined on the mechanical side that is why you cannot be free from the environment (I mean the physical vacuum with its special, different properties).

        Here I have nothing to tell you, but only I will ask to you to listening advice of old man - try to build everything from the beginning without using any of hypothetical (unproven) things. (Let me tell only that it is really is possible!)

        To help you somewhat, I will tell you that the physical vacuum is the same undetectable ether that was silently renamed, to be solve the huge problems in the microcosm for this time. You and I have big respects to Einstein. His first greatest merit was that he realized whole unnecessary of physical environment (that we can call the ether, physical vacuum or other) and he try remove it out from physics. Moreover, there is the proven kind of physical reality that can exist and work itself - without any environment, which are the electromagnetic field. The second greatest merit of Einstein (in my view) is that he says; everything can be build from this single kind of reality only that is the electromagnetic field! So, try please to work without physical vacuum!

        With all this, I see your work as a good significant.

        I wish you successes!

        Hi George:

        Enjoyed reading your paper and really agree with two key points you have made:

        1. The role of the observer; it is very important to have an integrated consciousness model with the physical model to realize the true nature of reality.

        2. "The huge numbers of different unstable particles cannot represent any nterest and perceptivity for study, because of their transient state and common physical essence."

        Particles represent fragmented and not wholesome reality of Oneness of consciousness in the Zero-point state of physical existence.

        Thank you very much for reading my paper and providing your kind comments. The mainstream science needs to cultivate a consciousness-integrated rather than Inanimate approach to science to represent a wholesome reality, purpose, and meaning to the universe and life in it.

        Again, I am really grateful for your understanding and support of the wholesome approach.

        Best Regards

        Avtar Singh

        Hi dear Christian

        It is nice to see you (and co-authors) in the contest. I have read your interesting article and have got there some valuable for me information. Particularly, I have impressed with that dramatic situation of Einstein that was linked with creation of GW. I had felt that it could not be accepted by Einstein so easy because there are one deep (and obvious) logical contradiction between GW and one of basic principle GR. It was very important to me to know that Einstein has some doubt in soul on the existence GW in generally! For this, mainly I am very thankful from your article.

        I never hide that I did not trust in the existence of GW and I have continue say this even there was announce on the detection of GW by LIGO group. This let be remain up on their conscience.

        I will call your attention only on the next argument; GR was based on the close - action principle, and GW, however, assume the existence of a far - action, let it be explained as a current of gravitons or, as the action trough the field etc. So, GW should be not there, otherwise this valuable - important principle of GR become broken in fact! I think Einstein was so doubtful on GW on this namely. There goes on the more powerful LISA project. I hope it can be realized and there will be finally established .... the absence of GW!

        Thus, I can welcome only your article as high valuable for me and evaluate it accordingly.

        With best regards

        Hi Don,

        It is nice to see you again in our clever company!

        I have discovered your unusual work and I have understood (after some time) that you try to use the pepper, - against to stupidity. I am doubtful this can be effective despite me also try to add some pepper (with the small salt) in mine essay. I do not know it can be useful because Russians say - "if guy is stupid, it is for long time!" But we must do our job as we see it may better!

        I welcome you and I wish to support you!

        Best Regards

          Hi dear George,

          You wrote a pretty, courageous and provocative Essay. I agree with a lot of the points that you raised. Sadly, current science is dominated by political issues. Thus, it is my pleasure giving you the highest score.

          Good luck in the Contest and best wishes, Ch.

            Thank you, Dear Christian!

            Unfortunately you are right, the politics is everywhere!

            But, I am thankful of God that my daily bread is not dependent from this favorable for us occupation. That is why some time I allow myself to say what I really thinking that need to say!

            All the best!