Boris very interesting the New Cartesian Physic, that fits very well in my Scale Landscape Framework.

Please, hev a look to these formulas evolution, and I hope you understand the concept:

The Dynamic Laws of Physics (and Universal Gravitation) have varied over time, and even Einstein had already proposed that they still has to evolve:

ARISTOTLE: F = m.v

NEWTON: F = m.a

EINSTEIN. E = m.c2 (*)

MOND: F = m.a.(A/A0)

FRACTAL RAINBOW: F = f (scale) = m.a.(scale factor)

Or better G (Gravity Constant) vary with the scale/distance due to fractal space-time: G = f ( Scale/distance factor)

(*) This equation does not correspond to the same dynamic concept but has many similarities.

    Dear Dizhechko,

    I am also an independent researcher. The general subject of my research is how the world began and how it works, so God does enter into my area of research along with many other areas. I can understand that most people tend to work in more narrow research areas. The advantage of doing so is that one can gain more in depth understanding about that one smaller area. The disadvantage is that one loses the view of the overall picture that can allow more overall understanding of the whole system. It takes both types to gain the full in depth understandings in all of the local areas of research and to then join all of them together to make a complete in depth understanding of the whole structure. I tend to see patterns in things around me that most others miss and can then follow those patterns to new understandings of the systems that generate them. That ability works best when working on the larger structural scale of things instead of a narrow area because the patterns are richer there and often flow through and connect many of the narrow areas when fully understood. I mainly tried to answer your comments about God. I try to help others who express thoughts or questions about an area that I have worked in and understanding God is the most important area in existence, but I don't have to cover that area if you are not interested.

    If space has a boundary(s), it cannot be infinite. This is the case whether it is a boundary that exists at the limit of its current expansion into the void or if it is just small bubbles of the void that exist somehow in or around matter particles, etc. To be completely infinite it would have to completely fill the void and the void would have to be infinite. If the universe is not truly infinite, it would not be likely that an infinite circle could be constructed except as a bounded infinity, which is different than an absolute infinity. If it is infinite, it would likely just extend out in all directions infinitely and have no geometric form or shape to it. This would mean that a motion could just continue on in a straight line without end and never need to have its motion curve. That is what motions do by themselves. They only curve as the result of interactions with something. The same thing applies to oscillatory motions. They need to have periodic interactions to change their direction of travel to generate the cycle. Most motions that man works with are not over long enough distances that any spatial curvature would exist. Especially the extremely small distances associated with the structure of matter particles. So far, all of man's observations that I have seen indicate a flat non curved space even at very large scales.

    If emptiness equals movement, what is the form or pattern of the movement of empty space compared to the vortex motion of matter that exists within its space? The angular motion of the vortex would generate a static mass effect in an interaction between it and any other vortex that was rotating in the same direction, but if the top end of one vortex interacted with the bottom end of another one they would both be traveling in the same direction at the same speed and would, therefore, not experience the same angular motion against angular motion mass effect that a side to side interaction would produce. If the interaction was between the side of one vortex with the side of the other vortex, but one vortex was rotated one hundred and eighty degrees from the other one, so that what was the bottom of it was now at its top, when their surfaces met they would both be traveling in the same direction and that would also produce a different mass effect during the interaction. In interaction observations these variations are not observed, however. This is what led me to conclude that a matter particle's motion had to be in a three dimensional motion pattern in order to produce a three dimensional balanced static mass effect. If I look up into the sky and see a star that is four light years away, how much of that empty space is related to me and how much of it is related to the star?

    Sorry it took so long for me to give a return comment, but I have now started on another project, so, much of my time is now applied to that. I will do my best to respond, however.

    Sincerely,

    Paul

    Piter, pundits began understanding the world by analysis. They are abstracted from the objects their properties and began to assert that they exist independently. Such is the fate of the space, which was an attribute of matter. Assume that geometrical space and physical space are two different concepts. Physical space has a pressure and it moves. We can say that we it space and have it boiling "bubbles".

    About levitation once showed on our television. One psychic from Israel was removed from the lead glasses, put them on the floor and a distance of movement of the fingers caused them to roll over. It is obvious that he has the ability to move the space that we do not see. If we are out of space, it should contact with the surrounding. We were not taught to manage it, so this ability in us has not developed, but there are people who have realized it in myself and not let it fade away.

    I wish you success!

    Dizhechko

    Boris,

    I've just posted the below to you on my string and returned to see your response here, than read; "Assume that geometrical space and physical space are two different concepts." I absolutely agree. And Bubbles within bubbles. Read the below. We think alike. I'll now apply your score to deservedly lift your placing.

    reply..

    Thank you. I admire all who write science in a foreign language and make it valuable and comprehensible. I imagine what nonsense mine would be if I tried to write in Russian!

    One question, (I'll post on both strings); I suggest that in reality Cartesian 'frame' systems are unreal so help confound much of science, and we need solid 'material', forming 3D geometrical shapes to then make proper sense of nature.

    Thoughts?

    Very best.

    Peter

    Peter, thanks for the question.

    I also criticize the Cartesian coordinate system for its long axis and on this basis to reject the special theory of relativity, as it is the basis of the inertial reference system, which prevent each other from moving due to the long axes. I believe that the Cartesian coordinate system takes place only in the infinitesimal sense. The place where we live is infinitely small relative to the entire Universe, so we can mentally use Cartesian 'frame' systems, assuming that space is at rest.

    I wish you success!

    Dizhechko Boris

    Уважаемый Р"СЌРІРёРґ!

    РЇ РїРѕРЅСЏР» РёР· вашего СЌСЃСЃРµ, что физика - это РґРѕСЂРѕРіР°, РЅР° которую РґСЂСѓРіРёРµ набросали РјРЅРѕРіРѕ РјСѓСЃРѕСЂР°, Рё РІС‹ пытаетесь разложить этот РјСѓСЃРѕСЂ РїРѕ полочкам. Это увлекательная, РЅРѕ тяжС'лая работа. Тебе РІ этом поможет только New Cartesian Physic, РІ РѕСЃРЅРѕРІРµ которой пространство-материи эквивалентность. Единство пространства Рё материи РІРѕР·РјРѕР¶РЅРѕ единственное рациональное РІ вашем СЌСЃСЃРµ. Рћ какой масштабности РјРѕР¶РЅРѕ говорить, если то, что РјС‹ РІРёРґРёРј РЅР° небосводе изогнуто РІ прошлое, так как сигналы РїСЂРёС...РѕРґСЏС‚ минуты, часы, сто лет, тысячи лет Рё С‚.Рґ. после события. Р'селенная замкнута потому, что пространство РІ РЅС'Рј бесконечно двигается Рё меняет РµС' конфигурацию.

    Р-елаю тебе подружиться СЃ New Cartesian Physic Рё проявить РІ ней СЃРІРѕРё способности.

    Р'сего С...орошего!

    Dizhechko Boris

    Paul, you were surprised by my assertion that space is the body of God. Here's my statement: "our eyes and the eyes of all living creatures God looks at Himself". The unity of the world in the unity of God, say the theologians. The unity of the world in the unity of matter - say the materialists. New Cartesian Physic claims that the unity of the world in the identity space, as the body of the Lord God that doeth wonders, and matter. That space is the body of the Lord God, people guess for a long time and therefore the question "Where is God?" they say, "God is in heaven."

    Nature abhors a vacuum - so said the ancient philosophers. The wall closes instantly, if we will allow God, says Descartes, somewhere in an extraordinary way to form the void. Descartes did not know that the greatest speed is the speed of light and so today we say that in this case the walls of the voids are closed at the speed of light. Therefore, the void where space is moving at the speed of light.

    The vortex is an unstable structure. Make it sustainable it is necessary that his side was locked. For example, the tornado lower end is locked in the surface of the Earth. The vortex will be stable if his side pinched, and he will be Thor. Boca vortex locked, if it is, as you say, becomes a three-dimensional movement due to its rotation.

    Dear Dizhechko

    Thank you for your comments on my page - I will re-read them and comment there.

    Your essay is rich with many interesting ideas. I will respond to only two because the analytical formulae of your model new physics seem important and need more study.

    You start by a reference to Christian belief, the Logo and Bible quotes. I fully respect that and am myself a Christian, but I have long considered that religion and science do not mix - better for both to be kept strictly separate! Of course we want a single truth, but in my life I have struggled long with this and feel that while we need prayer, the comforts of religious community and so forth, the mind, freed from the dictates of faith, will not accept many of the staples of religion like miracles, the creation story, an unseen power that is all-powerful yet allows evil to exist, etc.

    My second point is to thank you for reminding Descartes' concept of space and matter - he also described how the vortices of space transmit light. All that is fundamental to my Beautiful Universe Model and in face include an illustration of Descarte's vortices as figure 22 - (figure also attached here). Just brilliant to have thought of that hundreds of years before.

    I wish you all the best in your work.

    VladimirAttachment #1: BU-FIG-22.jpg

    Dear Dizhechko Boris,

    As I told you in my Essay page, I have read your Essay. I find it interesting and pleasant. Despite I do not agree with all your claims, I think that your ideas should deserve a better attention from the scientific community. Thus, in order to help you to better spread such ideas, I decide to give you the highest score. Congrats and good luck in the Contest. I hope that you will have the chance to read, comment and rate our Essay.

    Cheers, Ch.

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2862

    Dear Boris Dizhechko,

    Thank you for pointing out your essay on my forum page. I have in the meantime taken a look and would like to commend you on an intriguing title. My analysis has been somewhat curtailed by the artefacts of the online translator you have chosen to use and find the great wealth of nuances that you would have placed in your essay's details, to be most likely lost in translation. Indeed, translation is a very interesting subject in an of itself, with some overlap within the scope of this essay contest - taking the view that a language is a higher level emergent structure that is dependent on brain wiring architecture. However I am digressing. Perhaps you may have a succinct summary as regards your conclusions, trying in the genesis of volition with relation expressions.

    Regards,

    Robert

    Dear Dizhechko,

    We see many things in somewhat similar ways. You see space as God's body. After looking at the universe and seeing that it is made to be a temporary structure that contains entropy which will cause it to ultimately end, it does not make sense to me that God would not make it to exist without end if he intended it to be his body, so that he could live in it endlessly. It does make sense to me, however, that he could have made this universe as a place in which to make the parts of his body that he will save as the output of this world to be assembled and used by him to live in within a new better and permanent endless universe that he will make after this one is gone. When I looked in scriptures that are purported to be the words of God, I found that the Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament actually tell us that this is the case and that he intends that we be the parts or members of his endless body. I could not accept those scriptures as true, however, until I compared what they say about the universe with actual observations of the universe to see if what they say agrees with the actual observed universe. I looked for information that I had come to understand that was beyond man's current level of understanding and found that it not only contained that information, but also contained information about things that I had not yet come to understand, but some of which I now understand. This has convinced me that it is truly God's communication to us, telling us about himself, the world that he made and his reason for creating us or our part in his creation. According to the scriptures, this world is not just composed of the world that we see, which has four parts to it, (one is not a time dimension). It also contains three heavens that are controlled by other living creatures called powers for the first heaven, principalities for the second heaven and angels for the third heaven. This is another image of God because he says the angels are ministering spirits, which is an image of God the Spirit, the principalities are the mediators between the angles and the powers or an image of the Word and the powers directly control things in the earth or body of the world. He also says that there is a part of the creation that is high above the highest heaven that is reserved for only God the Father and his Son (the Word of God) to dwell in. This makes a total of eight parts or dimensions in this creation, most of which we cannot observe. Jesus said that in the world to come we will be as the angels are. Since the angels are likely seven dimensional creatures this would mean that we would be seven dimensional creatures in the world to come. The descriptions given about the world to come suggest that it will be a twelve dimensional creation. We will live on the new earth, but it could receive three of those four extra dimensions that could then support us as seven dimensional beings. As you can see the whole spatial dimensional structure that exists in this world will be replaced by a new bigger, better, and permanent spatial dimensional structure where we will live as members or parts of God's body without end. Of course, God existed before the creation of the universe, so he can and mostly does exist and live outside of the present universe. He does have the eighth part of the creation to use to observe and control all things in the universe as he desires, however. He also has a throne in the third heaven where he interacts with the angels and tells them what to do, etc. This universe including all of the matter and space that is in it is just a temporary manufacturing plant that God built and is using to build a permanent body for him to live in endlessly. When all of his body members have been made, he will not have any further need for this universe and it will be ended and replaced by the new universe as mentioned above.

    The void is just the empty space that existed in God's creation before God added motions to it to generate the forms or shapes of sub-energy, energy photon, and matter particles and the various combinations of them that he made when he made the world to make all of the things that it contains. It is not so much that nature abhors a vacuum as it is that it abhors a concentration. If you take a large container and divide it into two sections and make the best vacuum that you can in one side and place a large number of gas molecules in the other side and then remove the divider between the two sections, you will see that gas molecules will disperse themselves evenly everywhere in the container over a period of time. This does not happen because of anything that the vacuum does. It happens because molecules that travel toward the center of the concentration will likely interact with other molecules near the center and have their directions changed by the interactions, so that they travel away from the center of concentration. Molecules that travel away from the center of concentration will more likely be able to continue their travel in that direction because there are fewer molecules out there to interact with. Over time this results in an equal distribution of molecules throughout the container. It is the motions of the matter and not the vacuum or void that generates the result. I am not sure what you mean when you say "The wall closes instantly, if we will allow God, says Descartes, somewhere in an extraordinary way to form the void." What wall and how does it close if God created the void? Of course, there is nothing that you or any of us can do to not allow God to create it. An energy photon travels at the speed of light, so according to your theory it would seem that it must be part of the void. It would seem that the void could not interact with anything since it is just emptiness. How then can an energy photon interact with other entities in many ways as has been observed by man?

    You are right that a vortex is an unstable structure in that it requires continual input of motion to continue to exist. A tornado is actually weakened when its bottom is on the surface of the earth. When the earth's surface is heated by sun light, it heats the air just above it. The heated air expands and becomes less dense than the cooler air above it. This causes it to be lighter than the air above it, so it rises and the cooler air flows down around it. This flow of hot air up and cool air down continues as long as the ground under it receives heat from the sun. Due to the rotation of the earth and other factors this motion can begin to rotate and eventually cause a tornado. Once the bottom end is on the ground it begins to weaken because some or all of the warm air that provides the upward flow of air becomes blocked by the surface of the earth. The complete surface is not usually always on the ground, so most of the time it can continue on or near the surface for some time before it weakens enough that it goes up from the surface of the earth. Once it is up it can regain its speed and power and go back down again if the ground temperature conditions still exist to continue to feed its motion. Like the calm winds at the center of a hurricane the winds at the center of a tornado can be very low in rotational speed. The angular speed at the outside of the vortex is the greatest as is generally true of any vortex or rotating structure. This is necessary because if the air molecules are locked into revolving around the center axis of the vortex by the other molecules around them, those at the outside of the vortex must travel a larger distance during a revolution than those that are very near the axis. To give an example by using the rotation of the earth, a point on the surface of the earth at the equator travels about one thousand miles an hour in its angular motion around the axis of the earth, while a point that is one inch from the center of the axis near the north axis pole will only travel a little over three inches in a day. Pushing in on the sides of a vortex would not keep it going. The pressure on the rotating sides of the vortex would act as a brake to slow its angular motion down and eventually stop it. Although a vortex is a three dimensional object, its rotation is basically two dimensional. If you pick any point on or in the vortex, it rotates around the axis in a two dimensional plain. If in addition to its normal rotation you also rotate it from top to bottom and from bottom to top, it would then be a form of a three dimensional rotation. The problem that you would then have is that the two rotations would be continually changing each other's axis of rotation, which would tend to cause its angular motions to slow down due to the internal mass effects that would be generated against each rotation by the other rotation(s). In my theory, I use an inter-dimensional motion flow along with a servo of the speed of light to alter the direction of travel of an energy photon into an enclosed three dimensional path that generates the balanced angular motion mass effect and at the same time changes the energy photon into a matter particle, which is the cyclical curved enclosed path that the photon travels in. More details about that are given in my contest papers on this site. In my theory there is only one motion that is continually changing its direction of travel in a three dimensional motion pattern instead of the three dimensional rotation's two or three motions, so there are no internal opposing mass effects generated. It is much simpler to make workable solutions when you are only working with basic motions that move and empty space for them to move in than when you have a space that is not empty, but must be composed of some substance that can be shaped into structures like a vortex shape and where some parts of space can exert pressure on other parts of space, etc. We both see that the static mass effect of matter particles is created by motion and that motions must have space to move in. The main difference between our theories is that I have come to understand that motions are existent entities in themselves and are the only entities that have the power built into them to act and because of that they are also the only entities that have the power to interact. Since all other entities can be constructed using them, motions and an empty space for them to move in is all that is needed to make the universe. You appear to believe that a motion is not an entity of itself, but needs a medium to travel in and is only a property of that medium, so you envision space as an entity in itself that is composed of some material medium that motions can travel in. One problem with this concept is that the question that is automatically raised is: What is that medium composed of? It can't just be empty space, so what is it made of that gives it all of the properties that you give it? Another problem is how to get the three dimensional motion that is required to get a balanced static mass effect in matter particles. I have seen other similar theories and they all come short of being able to fully explain such things.

    Sincerely,

    Paul

    Boris,

    I found your essay very interesting, enough so, that I did some browsing on Cartesian philosophy. I was introduced to something I did not know existed. So, thank you for introducing me to a new world. I cannot say that I am a full fledged "new Cartesian" but I certainly use cartesian coordinates excessively.

    Your essay was (as you acknowledge) a little difficult to read, but it was worth the struggle. And I learned something new: A logic from a first person perspective that can be applied to the essay question, thus it gets a high rating from me. I think, therefore I am!

    Thanks,

    Don Limuti

    Dear Boris,

    I did not understand very well the physics part, because of the lack of understanding of English... but the philosophical part was pretty good and quite resembled the treatment that was given by several philosophers. You should check this paper:

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6091 Which links Kant, Hegel and Einstein to the problems posed by Descartes.

    I'd also indicate "Being and Nothingess", by Sartre. But, in order to understand it, I indicate these books (online and free):

    You can see how well Sartre solved the problem of observation posed by several philosophers. I really appreciate it:

    http://pvspade.com/Sartre/sartre.html