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!

      My kindly professor Ellis!

      Sorry for spending your time.

      Of course I read the listed rules. And first question for me become there - and where is the ready answers from these we must chosing the right one as, a) ... b) ... c) ?

      My dear, do you not thinking that science is not correct to build in such way? What is going on here actually? Some clever man has offering to us the questions that he see how is better to formulate. He give to us all details and all the right instructions also how need to move, on what direction to move etc - then let he tell to us also - where need to reach! Then tell me please what kind of valuable new result can we hope to obtain if we will agree to serve them as such exemplary soldiers? I have gone a little side of question because I see this question bring us to a wall. Let me say you also silently have gone a little side (and you also do right!) And we seen M-r Corda also (but a little bit more than we, I am agree with you here!) ....

      If this conversation you see interesting please try to read my essay. This about it. I felts that it will seem to you some strange and maybe will difficult job for you, because we are very different people really - and what we can do with this?

      With good wishes to you,

      Hi George,

      Really good to be in the mix again. Your essay pointed out how leading edge physics is getting kind of strange. And this strangeness has permeated the Peer Review system.

      I will defend the peer review system just a bit.

      If I were asked to be a judge of this contest I would: 1. Scream loudly 2. Run away as fast as possible. 3. All the while appreciating those who do volunteer.

      This does not take away from your essay which I rate very high.

      Don Limuti

      Hi George,

      I agree with your analysis of the state of physics, and I applaud your attempt in trying to solve them although I disagree with it.

      I have many things to say but I just want to start with the ERP question. DO you believe in it(entanglement) and if yes, your model does not seem to explain it or does it?

      Thanks

        Gracious scholar Adel!

        1. Of course, you have the right to be agreed or not with something.

        But, after such a declaration, it is usually accepted to justify why we do not agree on one or another of the issues?

        2. To find out what's in my model and what's not there, you just have to study my works (see Refs.)Then we can discuss.

        Regards

        Dear George,

        Although I was brief but I thought I was clear. I said I have many things to say, but first I wanted to discuss EPR, I did not find anywhere were you discuss it although you have it as reference [14].

        Dear Sadeq

        You have talking about my article that published 4-5 year ago, in reviewed journal. And the reference seems to me well in the context. However, If you are not so happy with this then please tell me what I need do now?

        regards

        Sorry for my equation,I made an error.It was necessary to differenciate the two kinds of matter,one baryonic, the other not baryonic.

        This one is better,E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² m(b) is the baryonic mass and m(nb)is the not baryonic mass.The cold dark matter is produced in my model of spherisation with quant and cosm 3D sphères Inside the universal 3D sphere by supermassive BHs.l is their linear velocity proportional with the spherical volume.That is why the aether is gravitational from the central cosm singularity, the biggest BH producing the speedest particles of gravitation.This standard model seems encircled by this cold gravitation.I have found in my humble reasoning that this weakest quant force was in the same time the strongest when we consider quantum BHs with a serie towards the quantum singularities,the cnetral BH of all serie of uniquenss .The particles of gravitation them are encoded weaker than electromagneic forces and photons.This thermo and standard model with photons is encircled by this gravity.That is why I consider that photons are spherons coded in fact.The main chief orchestra giving the road to photons is this gravitation.Like if God ,this infinite entropy balanced the thermo and cold like the + and the -.It is fascinating all this universal mechanic of imrpovement.

        Regards

        Dear George Kirakosyan!

        I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic

        I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it.

        If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better.

        I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.

        The concept of moving space-matter helped me:

        - The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter;

        - Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter;

        - Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz;

        - Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe;

        - To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

        New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in his essay I gave The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural . Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space. Hope you rate my essay as high as I am yours. I am waiting your post.

        Sincerely,

        Dizhechko Boris

        Dear Boris!

        I am very grateful to your attention to my work and your willingness to support me. I downloaded your work and began to study it. And it seems to me that we are striving for a largely common goal.

        聽1. You note, for example, that you explained the essence of the Lorentz transformation in the Cartesian coordinate system - this is extremely interesting to me, because I also tried to do the same, though, somewhat differently (see in Ref. [3]).

        聽2. You also talk about the principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg, which is also an intriguing topic for me.

        聽3. The problem of gravity, and the task of accurately assessing Einstein's legacy, are also very close to me questions.

        聽4. On your results on the interpretation of paranormal phenomena, however, I can not say anything definite, because I have not dealt with these problems yet. But, I'm sure that I can find there valuable approaches for me, in the near future. If questions arise, I think you will help!

        聽So, for this preliminary inspection, I can only welcome your work and definitely support you!

        With good wishes,

        Dear George

        I have just read with interest your essay critical of the state of physics today. You make a plea for leaders in the field (Prima Donnas) to re-examine their fundamental beliefs. You are also a little apologetic about making such demands. I used to be that way too but if one believes something needs to be changed it is good to declare it clearly. Your essay refers to how the role of the observer became central. I have been very critical of Einstein for confusing physics by introducing such an observer in Special Relativity in my current my fqxi essay which you kindly read. I was curious that you said there are tens of thousands of opposition physicists. Where did you arrive at that figure? I had a quick look at your theory of the electron but I am not qualified to judge it.

        Physics is fun. I wish you all the best in your study and work.

        Vladimir

          Shokran Vladimir,

          Now I understand that you really has an artist's soul.

          I also understand that for you it is more important human attitude than other things! So, we can talk long and to say many nice things each to other, but let me just stop on two your remarks. 1. On scientists - protestants. Yes, there are unbelievable number of oppositions in present physics, who are under global pressing of "official science." And no need go so far to find them, my friend - we can find someone right here! I mean Eugeny Klingman, for example, who goes now on the top. God help to him (but I have doubt!) we will see! You can find many of them, using google even.

          2. About role of Einstein: There are 3 Einstein for me; early, medium and last. First one is what you say. The second one was who already get huge success (by some specific way for known to you kind of people.) But for us it must be more important a third Einstein, when he have understand that he has done many wrong things then he tried to catch shaitan and put again in the bottle ... but it was already out of his power! THEY had say him - thank you "habibi" what you have done, but now you must go away ... and he become one very tragic person, to end of his life!

          Be well, my friend.

          George,

          Well done. You deliberately and logically present the essentials for the right aims and intents of the conscious mind of the observer. Good process analysis. Like the independent thinkers of old, we must ignore politicization and bias of the times and utilize natural law.

          Depending on the frame of observation, my highly speculative hypothesis about dark matter, needs the ideal observer who depends on galactic field studies to see if dark matter is not an independent field like most DM scientists are prone to believe but possible one generated by the galactic motions and forces of gravity, EM, and the strong and weak force all in tandem.

          It is only a thought experiment, maybe in the vein of Einstein, but one that is out of the box -- somewhat in your thought train. You provide important steps for agency and intent.

          Hope you can check out my essay and provide your thoughts.

          Regards,

          Jim Hoover

            Dear James,

            Thank you for attention on my work. I appreciate your support!

            Coming to your essay I will just emphasize some points that you says: "Such laws are not mindless ..." Then you says "they not dictate the aim ...". This almost is enough to me to understand your vision on the contest question. Then you goes a little on side and you linked the aim with the entropy. This I can welcome only (I think not me only!) because the connection of the entropy with system organisation it should be obvious to everybody. And, the purposefulness cannot be without organisation. So, this also is nice!

            But let me just tell you friendly that I am a little bit sceptical to dark matter. If you will ask my advice here then I will say - It will better to wait until we understand the physical essence of gravity phenomena, the elementary particles etc. I mean, it maybe that time we just will see that the ''dark matter" becomes not so necessary!

            And, in the common sense your essay are one of nice works in the contest. So, I can wish you success only!

            Best regards

            The FQXi is a very social oriented group. The thing you disagree with is the social rating type of group. The majority of folks in this contest don't even address the stated task. (I think only 3 perhaps 4). I like it because in past years there have been a few points I find interesting. The group generally dislikes my ideas. Because they are so different from the status quo. I've had many tell me (usually with some indignation ) over the years that what I write is not in the accepted social way. (See Schmitz comment in my essay). So the characteristic You don't like is in the social group mentality. I agree but the real situation is slghtly different. The Powers that Be want to stay the Powers that Be and ideas that chalange their learning means they would have to relearn and loose power (to approve papers) and social standing.

            I suggest you are correct to examine the Galileo vs. Roman Catholic Church interaction. But your view is science viewpoint mythology. A few Popes before Galileo, the Church was in competition with the Islamic world and loosing badly. The Ottoman empire was in Europe and they were helping fund the Protestents. The Moors were in Spain and had invaded France. The islamic world was more tolerant (for exmple: the elete troops were Christins -Janisaries- who could become prime minister) So the pope decided to become more tolerant. And it worked - The Ottoman were repulsed, trqde boomed, science made great advances. However, the Moors had run their course and were decaying from the inside . But the rulers in spain made big deal of defeting the moors ( a falsehood). The rulers then asked Rome for a special type of law (inquisition) known as the Spainish inquisition which was extremely intolerant. From rome's pespective it looked like intolerance was the way to go.

            So, Rome cracked down on all who incorrectly thought different than the accepted science. Here's where it gets tricky. Copernicus published his book with the Churches permission and approval. The person he asked to publish it was protestant and changed the wording to suggest it was simply a means to calculate the days and not a suggestion as to the truth (belief was a Church province). So, if a person (Galileo) wanted to believe he had but to present observations to the Church that were observable - a science criteria today. Galileo did this for the moons of Jupiter. The Copernican idea was accepted by the Church as a calculating means for a particularly thorny problem for the Church - on what day should various celebrations be celebrated and how to coordinate them across Europe (Ptolemaic method was very difficult).

            As soon as some (Galileo and others) started to BELIEVE, they crossed into Church territory. Especially because the data/observations DID NOT support Copernicus. Galileo himself attempted to find parallax in the stars as Copernicus suggested - Ptolemy said no parallax. Galileo apparently suppressed his null measurement. So sun centered was total belief not science. This is a problem with null measurement such as the Michelson-Morley. The concept of precision was little understood in Galileo's time. The value was below the instruments ability to measure. The parallax was finely measured in the 1830s. and Copernicus accepted. So the Church was acting scientifically as you seem to be suggesting except in the tolerance to let others think (publish).

            So what criteria should there be for publishing. The status quo (like seen in the FQXi) even rejects data, explanation of observations mathematically, and prediction of observations on don't rock the boat criteria not correctness criteria. The Church wanted the ideas to be observable - Which Galileo didn't do.

            Hodge