My response to Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich's comment on my paper's page on Jan. 26, 2018

Dear Boris,

I can understand your desire to get the best review that you can on your paper, so that you could likely win a prize in the contest, so I won't ask you to give me a return comment, so that you can devote your time to trying to win the contest, but I feel the need to respond to your comment because you seem to believe that the use of numbers and the exploration of the world leads people to commit sins and that you are committing blasphemy by doing so, which is not the case. First Satan is not everywhere that God is. Satan is a creature created by God and is an angel, so he would have access to the 3 heavens and the earth, but he does not have access to the eighth (highest) place in the creation because only God the Father and the Word can go there he also cannot go outside of the creation where only God can go. Those who have chosen to become members or parts of God's body and have been completely sanctified and have God living and ruling in their lives do not need to fear Satan because God is much greater in power and in all other ways than Satan, since he is the creator and Satan is just one of his creatures. Those who are being sanctified, but have not yet completed the process that makes them completely ready for God to fully live in them by replacing all of the foolishness that is naturally built into man with the knowledge of God, can still be tempted in some cases, but God can also keep them from sinning, which is why when the disciples asked Jesus how they should pray he gave them a prayer the included asking God to "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil". Those who do not choose to become members of God's body are given over to Satan to rule over them, so they will be led into sinning by him. He works this through many lies and other means, since they are not protected by God. The biggest lie is the one that he used with Eve to get her to sin, which is that you can be as gods. People are convinced that they can rule over their own lives and be completely independent from all others, when in reality they are obeying Satan's desires. This is why even though they say that they are for everyone having free choice in all matters, they actively try to get rid of all evidence of the existence of God from the world, which if successful would actually take away the freedom of choice to choose to become members of God's body, as an example. Of course, God will not allow that to happen because he always keeps a remnant among the people. Satan knows that once God has completed the making of his body members, there will be no more need to have him to rule over those who do not choose God because God will then destroy this creation and all of the evil that is in it including him and will make a new better creation in which evil will not exist. He, therefore, tries to keep God from finishing his work by destroying as many people as he can. He will even try to kill those who serve him because he knows that as long as they are alive they can change their minds and chose to become God's body members. He must keep them from understanding what they are giving up until they die, in order to be sure that they will be lost to God because it is then too late for them to change their minds. There is, therefore, a way for people to avoid having Satan in their minds leading them to explore the world in such a way as to cause them to commit sins. It just requires them to choose to have God in their minds leading them to explore the world in such a way as to cause them to do good instead of evil. Exploring and gaining an understanding of God and his creation is not against God's will. He actually tells us to do so. That is why Jesus said "seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you, ask and ye shall receive." Seek means to actively look or see or observe that which is around you, which is the basis for gaining all understanding of the world and is a necessary part of the scientific method. To knock is to interact with the world and is also a part of the scientific method. After all, most of what is known about matter particles has resulted from knocking them together and observing the results. The asking has two parts. First is that when you begin to search for an understanding of the world you can find others who have already spent much time seeking, knocking, and asking who can give you the benefit of their work, thus avoiding the need for each person to redo everything. You must be careful, though, to be sure that the provided information is correct. The second part is that you can ask God and since he made all of the creation and knows everything about himself, he can show you all he desires for you to know about it and him at the proper time for you to use it according to his purpose. The difference is that God desires for you to know the truth about him and the creation that he made including those things that can tell you things about him, while Satan desires for you to believe things based on lies that will keep you from seeing and understanding the things that will tell you about God and his nature and the things that would show you that he made the creation. To me the choice is easy to make. You either choose the one who made you and loves you enough that he desires for you to become a part of him and to live and work together in a loving relationship with him in a life without end in a new perfect world without end or you choose the one who desires to destroy you so that he can delay God's work as long as he can to keep himself alive as long as he can. The best that you can hope for if you make that second choice is to have a life that will most likely be less than 100 years long in this world and then to have death and destruction.

Usually to say God in heaven does not refer to the earth's heaven where the sun, moon and other stars, etc. are located, but refers instead to the heaven that is the other part of the creation, which is divided into 3 heavens. The earth is contained in the lower 4 dimensions of the creation. The first heaven also has an additional fifth dimension and is controlled by the powers. The second heaven has an additional sixth dimension and is controlled by the principalities. The third heaven has an additional seventh dimension and is ruled by the angels. God's throne is located in the middle of the third heaven. When someone with understanding says God in heaven, he would usually be referring to the third heaven where God's throne is. We are not given much information as to the construction of the heavens, so we don't even know if it contains any matter as we know it. When God had created the earth he said that it was without form and void. This means that it contained space that was meant to hold or contain things with shapes or forms, but it was empty space at that time and did not contain any of those things within it. The things would, of course, be things made of matter, but matter had not yet been created in it. This tells us that the space and the matter are two different things. The space was created first and later the matter was created in it out of motions that were added to the earth later. Gravity has to do with the sub-energy field particles that the Spirit of God added to the earth when he moved upon the face of the waters and the fifth vector motion that changes energy photons into matter particles, etc., but I can't go into the details of that at this time.

I hope that this can help you to avoid the blasphemy and to gain the relationship with God that will deliver you from evil. As I said, you don't have to answer this comment as I know you are busy trying to get good reviews to win the contest.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

I've read many Russian novels and your last name sounds familiar. Great works, those. Going through your essay I had to learn a little about Descartes and was amazed to find out that his three laws of nature predated Newton's laws of motion. I like your statement: "All the upper floors of modern physics - is a solid mathematical abstraction with a distant hint of physical content." Like you, I think there is something fundamental about simple geometry, especially when it involves the circular form. In all, a thought provoking essay.

Regards, Peter

    Dear Dizhechko Boris

    I think your essay is very important (the best one I know so far) and therefore rated, Since it profoundly attacks most of current problems in physics.

    To address all problems and put new forward going Idea are two very important actions, but I sometimes wonder which one is most important to focus on first?.

    Regarding to history of scientific development It has been something normal that scientists at time conclude their work and generalize to equation, based what they so far but second generations must be aware it's validity and if there is new discovery immediately must be profoundly interpreted while taking into account it Philsophical aspect, other wise misinterpretation may lead chain of misconceptions.

    A best example is tremendous situation of the separation (due to matter of misinterpretation) between Classical Physics and the Quantum Mechanics.

    Linking them to the Fundamental nature of Gravity, there is 232 years old PUZZLE namely Coulomb's Law which have valid reason last 85 years (1932 last nucleon discovery), but I m not quite sure if today's Scientists are aware to it and it's consequences. I think the appropriate and inspiring question is;

    Regarding to Coulomb's law a statement that says "same type of charge repell and different type of charge attracts". How Coulomb would conclude his law, if he know that nuclei has protons that same type of charge are attracting each other and with the neutrons? and they can be divided into fractions of charge?.

    I agree conceptual explanation and would like to discuss it later.

    The fundamental concept physics is based on three basic units Mass, Space and Time ( matter plus two related basic effects) which isn't interchangeable but their effects (derived) as energy, force an so are interchangeable since it agrees with our everyday experience.

    The case of mass energy the is lot we can discuss about, In 2010 (previous essay) I quantized that mass of elementary particle (photon) but I have experienced that there is great misunderstanding due to confusion of terms over last hundred years.

    Mass of photon m=E/c^2 = 1.7x10^-36kg.

    Wavelength = 1.2398ﾃ--10^-8 m

    These results and perhaps more are also in Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt

    We are incoherently talking same thing in diffrent name. I would be thankful if one can comment.

    Sincerely.

    Bashir

      Yes, Peter, Descartes wanted to make all physics as geometry. However, in science the most famous is its coordinate system, which gave rise to analytic geometry. It is from there that the concept of space has passed into other areas of knowledge. Space was called any set of objects in which each element can be expressed through other elements. Thus, science did not notice its fundamental concept of physical space, which is matter. For this reason, everything fundamental in science was left without a foundation.

      My last name is of Ukrainian origin. In translation, it means a small barrel. So you can call the smallest particle of space, which according to Descartes is matter.

      I wish you success! Dizhechko Boris

      Dear Bashir, in new-Cartesian physics, corpuscles is three-dimensional vortices that, under the influence of the pressure of the Universe, unite into bodies. It recognizes two fundamental forces: the force of the pressure of the universe and the centrifugal force of rotation of space. The remaining forces are their combinations and superposition's that arise when the corpuscles are combined into bodies. The Coulomb law and Newton's law of gravitation have a common in the inverse square of the distance, and so the surface of the sphere can vary. Consequently, they can be generalized by the Gaussian Law. The law of equivalence of mass and energy in the new-Cartesian physics of corpuscles is explained by the fact that the centrifugal force in the vortex is balanced by the force of the Universe pressure.

      Sincerely, Boris

      Hi Peter! New Cartesian Physics more than a model, it wants to be the theory of everything OO. In it, the wave function describes the rotation of space, which according to Descartes is matter.

      Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

      Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

      Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

      My essay is titled

      "Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

      Thank you & kind regards

      Steven Andresen

      Hi Dizhechko

      Thank you for visiting my essay.Actually your idea has been noticed before even by me:)

      https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-these-relations-have-any-physical-significance.899307/#post-5658931

      There are also very sophisticated versions that capitalize on the theme, there are many papers, here is one

      http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/electron.pdf

      I think they are all interesting and known for a long time, but does not seem to have been accepted. Maybe you can find a way.

        Adel,I can only agree with the fact that a mathematical structure emerges from reality and further, beyond the mathematical structure, we can see reality.

        You stubbornly do not want to admit that space is matter and that space contains information about the mathematical structure of reality.

        I think you misunderstood my theory, I think you did not study it well. My theory says and proves that space, time, matter and their interactions are all Aspects of a mathematical structure, That is, relation between NUMBERS. So you can say matter is made from space OR space is made from matter. It is like the structure of a triangle, you could say the relations between the lines decides the angles or the angles decide the relations between the lines. You are describing the same thing and origin of it is just numbers.

        Adele, you imagined yourself above Descartes. He said: "Give me the matter, and I will build the whole world." You say: "Give numbers and for their relations see the world" Do you see the difference? According to Descartes, space is matter that can be in a state of physical vacuum that we do not see or in a state of tangible corpuscles. A field is a physical space, each point of which has its potential, defined by a mathematical formula. So, that physical space is the foundation on which fundamental theories are built. The world is the invention of God, and mathematics is the invention of man.

        I have not put myself above anybody. I just did good science by analyzing what was written by others plus all the observations and came up with a POSSIBLE solution to the problem that is the subject of this contest with more than hundred people, all with different view.

        Descartes is a great philosopher, physicist and mathematician, whose ideas are in demand so far. I want to show that Newton was wrong when he said that he sees further him, as he stands on his shoulders. In fact, he saw only near. Cartesian principle of the identity of space and matter is fundamental, capable of generalizing modern physics into the theory of everything.

        Boris, hoping this helps when I comment on your essay, this is an edited carry-over from my answer to you at More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

        ......................

        Dear Boris, I'm replying here [@ my essay-thread] because your comment is currently missing.

        NB: if you saw me in the penthouse of Towerblock-101, that's because I am the Chief Maintenance Mechanic there, 24/7. The basement, where the foundations are exposed, is where "I live, move and have my being" *** -- even sleeping there beneath my desk.

        Thus, relatedly, my essay begins with two axioms and a consequent premiss: true local realism. I then study EPRB, identifying beables and interactions in a related notation.

        There follows --- from first principles, in my "neo-classical" terms and concretely --- the Laws of Malus, Bayes, and Born (the last thanks to Fourier and the R-F theorem).

        Though not shown (for space reasons, and from any good textbook), the consequent confirmatory QM-style application of Born's Law (now concretely established, as above; and without mystery) to EPRB and DSE (+++) is immediate.

        Reproducing the correct results -- without mystery -- you can thus see that we are well on our way to reformulating QM ++ from elementary fundaments, absent mystery.

        With thanks for your [now missing] comment [@ my essay-thread], more may follow on its return; I write here from recall.

        Gordon

        ..........................................

        PS: *** in-part prompted by the last line of your essay: to which I'll return in my next comment.

        Gordon Watson

        @ More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

        Dear Boris, captured by your opening paragraph and your Cartesian emphasis (and being, as you know, a Maintenance-Mechanic specialising in FOUNDATIONS) -- [oops, caps = Freudian slip] -- I was delighted to see you using [see my essay] Born's Law on your p.6. And more intrigued when I saw your closing line: "Physical space is the body of God in which we exist and in which wander on the way to it."

        For this line triggered a corrective recollection from my years of teenage rationalism (as yet undiminished)! Though, at that time, I was not aware of (and therefore was independently following, in my terms) Descartes' Dictum (DD):

        "Never accept anything for true which you do not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and bring nothing more to your judgment than what is presented to your mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt."

        For I immediately recalled, from the KJV English Bible --- Acts 17:28 --- For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

        My own translation, from the Greek [so keen was I to understand such things] was: "In God we live, emote, and develop [our will and intellect]."

        And when I looked for those poets, I found a related verse from an invocation to Zeus! As google now tells me: Zeus, in ancient Greek religion, chief deity of the pantheon, a sky and weather god who was identical with the Roman god Jupiter. His name clearly comes from that of the sky god Dyaus of the ancient Hindu Rigveda. Zeus was regarded as the sender of thunder and lightning, rain, and winds, and his traditional weapon was [electromagnetic] the thunderbolt. He was called the father (i.e., the ruler and protector) of both gods and men.

        Thus, in this way, we arrive at a true fundament; in my view suited to the rationalist and the religious alike. It goes something like this: "God: in whom we live, emote, and develop our will and intellect; and, as a certain poet has said, From whom we are all related."

        I look forward to your comments on this joint enterprise.

        As for your ideas re Descartes ideas, I must (at the moment, subordinating space and mass to God) invoke DD.

        With my thanks and best regards,

        Gordon Watson

        @ More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

          Greetings Mr. Semyonovich

          I appreciate your effort to read the essay, but i don't believe that i fully understand your question "Your essay is the first among those who are looking for what is fundamental?" what do you mean by that? because what i wrote here is quite simple and therefor it cannot have the attribute of "the first...", but i suppose that you didn't want to say that, that's why i say that i do not fully understand what you wanna ask.

          Otherwise i am quite new in this field of scientists and i try to learn the convention between them, with the intention to become one, if it suits me. with that said the next misunderstanding will be on "rating an essay". you said "I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea" and i am truly honored by your words but have you rate it already? or should i be the first(among us) who rates and after that i will get rated as well?

          As you can see, i am a little confused so please don't take my words as malicious or hostile but as an effort to get out of this confusion. In each case i will read and rate your piece of work. Silviu

            Dear Boris!

            I am really very enjoyed to read your work, where I has find the same things that I am thinking. This is not only kindly words but I am a little bit shocked how two people can seen the same problem. It make me hopeful that others also can be able to see und to understund about on what we are crying here! But, I think this will hapen not so fast, my Dear!

            Your suggested way to solution is some different than my, but here also I seen many common points (as the principle of conservation of the angular momentum, or the incrase of speed to - c with decrasing radius of circulation. These things finds place within my approach too .... but it will long matter to talk about all of this.

            So, I can only very welcome your essay and wish you success in the contest!

            Good Wishes,

            George Kirakosyan