Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

Hi Boris

As usualy, very good essay. Score 9.

Regards

Branko

So ... your conclusion is that "physical space is the body

of God in which we exist and in which wander on the way to it"?

Boris

Your theory starts with the assumption that light moves with the same speed in relation to all inertial observers. That assumption is illogical, and cannot give a consistent theory, only absurdities.

You have no mechanism that can explain gravity.

What do you think about these ideas?

Regards from __________________ John-Erik

Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

You wrote: "And the contemporary community as never before requires an adequate level of development of clears vision of the world of its existence, which currently does not give answers to many global issues." My clear vision of the world answers all questions concerning its reality.

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dizhechko,

There am no space. There am only infinite surface that we always see.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Zdrastavite Boris Dizhechko

Thank you , Cpasibo esyo ras for remembering me and posting on my essay ...!

Thank you for saying that the idea of dynamic Universe model is very good.

You said... "However, you don't use the fundamental principle of Descartes's about identity of space and matter, which allows to see that the Sun releases energy of rotation of the Galaxy..."

Descartes rejected the splitting of corporeal substance into matter and form; second, he rejected any appeal to final ends, divine or natural, in explaining natural phenomena.[15] In his theology, he insists on the absolute freedom of God's act of creation...... Says present day wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

You said......."If you say that photons falling on a massive body, then I say that on the Sun falls space, which according to Descartes is matter and there is transformed into corpuscles."

Dynamic Universe Model says the frequency shift happens when EM radiation goes grazingly .... Not when photons fall into massive body.

You said ...... "In addition, I showed that the formula of mass - energy equivalence is derived from the existence of the pressure of the Universe. In General, I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity. Visit my essay"

I will visit... and post again... By the way.....................

Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

Best Regards

=snp

Dear Boris Dizhechko,

Thank you very much for all the support, I don't know how to repay, except reciprocating your help....

Spacibo vam balshoya

Best Regards

=snp

Dear Dizhechko

This is a copy of my response to you in my essay, 'A cold bang...' at https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3041. I am repeating it here because our essays at least share the Cartesian perspective (yours is a physics perspective and mine aligns with Descartes as a rationalist).

>>> I wrote:

Thank you for reading my work. My previous essay is very much taken from a Cartesian philosophical stance, which is endpoint rationalism. This essay is founded on that essay, visit https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1904 . This may seem to be 'recycling' other physics, when in reality it explains why other physics is as it is (metaphysics) not how it is (physics).This isn't supposed to be possible according to Hume and Kant. I wonder how your Cartesian physics might connect to my Cartesian rationalism?

The 'fundament' should be very easy to understand, as you say, and if you read the previous essay, you will see that it is easy (even if abstract) because it is just a person's internal idea of equivalence and difference, which I show is necessarily the foundation of human understanding. Ultimately, I argue that all knowledge (meaning justified truth worthy of belief) is only accessible from this idea of equivalence, which I express formally as the General Principle of Equivalence. The ontological necessity of the GPE is only referenced in this essay, but it is established in the first essay - https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1904

I hope this is of value. It produces a foundation for time and space, which ought to key into your New Cartesian model, but may need a deal of consideration. Thank you for making contact.

Best wishes

Stephen.

John-Eric

Dizhechko is right here. The postulate comes from Einstein and has be checked at every level by just about anyone who works in the area. Yes it leads to a weird world model but this seems to align to the reality. It is what Special Relativity is all about.

Stephen Anastasi

Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

There's much overlap in our interpretation of physics, particularly your emphasis on the fact that

"Sometimes discovery is not a physical property of an object, but a property of the mathematical structure."

I touch on this in my essay when I quote Maudlin:

"...even if we can describe a mathematical structure that everywhere looks locally like a possible space-time structure, it does not follow that the whole object corresponds to a physical possibility."

There are many examples of such projection in physics, many of them applying to quantum mechanics. As one example I would suggest that the Compton wavelength, considered as the size of a particle, is almost certainly incorrect. Nevertheless it appears useful.

My focus is on the Einsteinian "ether, physical space, and field" becoming synonymous. I prefer the concept of 'field', and in particular the gravito magnetic field, which is a circulation/vortex in the field. This seems to agree with yours/Descartes's view in many interpretations.

If you read my last essay on the Nature of Mind, you will find it not far from your final sentence.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

My return comment to Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich's comment on my page on Jan 24, 2018

Dear Boris,

You did not tell me of your preference, so I used Boris this time. Let me know if that is not ok with you. Numbers and quantities are used by God in the creation. For the most part math is man's abstract language used to work with them, so I don't believe that math is of Satan, but like all of the parts of man's abstract language system it can be used either for good to aid in the understanding of God and his creation or for evil to lead people away from understanding of God and his creation. God did not say that all knowledge was bad or evil for man to have. Man was only forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Once they understood what was good and what was evil, they would know that they were to obey God and to disobey God would result in the penalty of death, which is why God commanded them to not get that knowledge because he knew that their disobedience would result in their deaths. Other knowledge was not forbidden. Math can either model reality, a complete fiction like in video games, or anything in between that is part true and part false. Having a good conceptual understanding based on observation can help to keep the math models based on reality. As an example, if you understand that total motion content is always conserved in interactions, you won't believe a math model that is based on time as a physical dimension in which you could go back into the past or forward into the future because in order for that to work a complete new copy of the universe would have to be made every time some motion in the universe changed to a new position in space in order for there to be an existent past to go back into before that motion moved. This would be a violation of motion (energy) conservation because it would require a new creation of all of the matter particles, energy photons, and field particles in the universe and even a complete copy of the spatial system to make the copy before it was changed by the movement of the motion to its new position. If you went back in time and changed anything, it would either have to start a new alternate progression of copies of the complete universe from that point or changes would have to somehow be propagated through all of the copies that had been made from that point to the point that you went back in time to change all of the subsequent time to incorporate the changes that you made and all of the other changes that might have occurred as a result of the changes that you made. This would require a complex processing system that could not come about in any natural way and since God does not mention such complexities and observations don't support them either, it would not be reasonable to assume that they exist. My purpose is not to sow discord, but rather to sow the truth that if believed would eliminate discord. If space is matter and matter is space then there is an unknown or undefined substance that space/matter is composed of that contains the rotation motions that you mention. Without knowing what this substance is, the theory would still be incomplete lacking the most important basis upon which everything is built up upon. In addition to that a continual rotation must be supported by the interaction of two motions with one of them working at an angle to the other, because in the absence of an interaction, motions always move in a straight line. What those motions are and how they work would also need to be explained for the theory to have any possibility to be true. As I mentioned in my previous comment, there would also be the problem that a simple rotation would not produce a static mass effect in the matter particles that was the same in all directions around the particle, but observational data suggests that it is the same in all directions. How is the structure of energy photons explained in your theory? I find it much simpler for space to just provide empty places where motions can be positioned, can transfer to the next position, and can interact with other motions. Making space an active entity that contains complex cyclical motions in it adds unnecessary complexity. It is much simpler to make fields from simple linear motion entities, to construct energy photons by adding one more linear motion to a field particle, and to make matter particles by adding one more motion to an energy photon.

You are welcome. It can sometimes be necessary to simplify a conceptual description in order to gain its acceptance, but there are a couple of possible downsides to that, which are that you might find someone who understands that it won't work properly in the simplified form and you could look to be lacking in understanding, which would hinder acceptance and if it does get accepted because people could accept the simplified form, you must then change the form to the way that things really work to establish the true workable form, which again could cause you to lose credibility because it can look like you didn't fully understand it in the first place.

I can understand your problem of lack of time to communicate, but with me the rating is not important because I would not expect to win the contest because I am giving out information that is well beyond man's maximum acceptance threshold. I am not entering the contests to win, but just to disseminate information that is important to man's advancement ability. With me, the problem is that once the papers come out, they come out in a large quantity in a short time, which makes it difficult to look at and comment on all of them that I believe might help the contestant in some way to understand how things really work. As I mentioned in my previous comment to you, I believe that space is not God's body.

I will post this on both my page and yours, so I can have a convenient copy of all of my comments to others and all of the other's comments to me in one place.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dizhechko,

You are correct to note the relationship between various good physical theories and see that they must share fundamental principles. The present state with fragmented theories and observations can be assembled into a single theory after setting aside unnecessary and distracting parts. These odd parts are often holdover from previous theories or based on unwarranted mathematical projections.

I agree that "space is matter." And propose that most anyone coming to this place with an open mind can reach a similar conclusion. And see that the localized motion of these bits of matter give us what is known as the Higgs field. And the basis of time. The curvature of this solid body gives the force we call gravity. And the slightly denser region in and near galaxies is called "dark matter."

Congratulations on an excellent essay. I will post both at your essay and after your comment on my essay.

Sherman Jenkins

Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

I enjoyed your essay. New Cartesian physics is interesting indeed. The way it connects de Broglie wavelength to Lorentz transformation. But the assumptions you made in this theory, how much do you think it is reasonable especially in the case of GR?

Best,

Priyanka