My essay is a call for researchers to remember the identity of space and matter of Descartes, and to continue his theory of everything in the light of modern achievements of physics.

Dear Boris, hoping this helps to clarify my position in relation to your essay, this is carried-over from my answer to you at More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

As I also indicated: Your essay is ahead of many of us in touching on that most elementary of fundaments: the space in which we live, move and have our being.

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

Dear Boris,

Please note the the fundamental originality in my theory is to replace "realism -- which, even in physics, is naive-realism -- by true realism: "true realism insists that some existents may change interactively."

You then see that this elementary foundation (with true locality) already provides a classical basis for much of modern physics.

Thus -- as I have just replied to you (above) -- when I "put my mind to the consideration of physical space" I arrive at this:

As I understand Descartes' theory of matter: matter is defined by the amount of space that it occupies; so all space is matter; thus empty space does not exist; hence the space between planets is occupied by an invisible fluid (an ether) and vortices therein drive the planets around the Sun.

To my modern mind (though it be no match for Descartes), I prefer to talk in terms of beables [existents, things which exist]. So I would talk of planets [as matter] and spacetime, with planetary motion driven by the latter AND matter (which, as against Descartes, is not far distant from him saying that the planets are driven by the matter of space).

Thus, for me -- in giving beable-status to "space" and its consequents --- Descartes was ahead of his time: as we all waited for another genius, called Einstein.

Question: Do you accept true locality and true realism; eg, see ¶1.4 in my essay?

Cheers; Gordon

...

Gordon Watson

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Dizhechko,

Thanks for checking out my essay. IN your essay, how does it regard the original Descartes comparison of the three laws of motion with other physics theories:

1. Every body will remain at rest, or in a uniform state of motion unless pushed or pulled.

2. When a body is pushed or pulled, it accelerates proportional to the force of the push or pull and inversely proportional to the mass of the body and in the direction pushed or pulled.

3. Every push or pull has an equal and opposite reaction.

I am trying to see how the New Cartesian physics is a generalization of the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and other theories based on the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

    Jim Hoover, many researchers use the concept of ether, which in fact is a physical space, but which according to Descartes is matter. I say these researchers - replace your mythological ether on the physical space, and would be fine. New Cartesian Physics consider these researchers as asset.

    For Descartes the physical space is a physical environment, the movement of which can only be a rotation. The transition of rotational movement from one orbit to another is possible when the pull or push. Like a rocket on the ground when she not pushed, she remains.

    Newton was not right when he said that he sees further Descartes so as standing on his shoulders. For him, space is an empty in which flying body possessing mass. Descartes physical space is a matter, in which there are no empty. But if they are formed, then closes instantly. Taking into account modern concepts, the speed of light is the limit for any real movements, in the New Cartesian Physics the empty in the space closes to the speed of light. For intelligent people from this moment begins the real physics.

    In my essay I showed the relationship between the probability of quantum States and the factor of Lorentz. I believe that this is the first step toward synthesis of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. More show I not could , as it requires a lot of effort which must be highly appreciated.

    Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

    Jim Hoover, direct line on which a body is moving uniformly accelerated if operates a force exists only in our imagination. In the real world, such a movement is observed only in a small area and as a component of the real movement. Thus, the Newton was considered a ideal movement in a small area, and Descartes considered real motion, where the uniform motion is in a circular orbit, where it is also necessary to pull the body to the center

    Dizhechko,

    "Many researchers use the concept of ether, which in fact is a physical space, but which according to Descartes is matter. I say these researchers - replace your mythological ether on the physical space, and would be fine. New Cartesian Physics consider these researchers as asset." This no one can disprove, let alone me, and is a contribution to all our ideas. Time grows short, and rating are sparse in this contest. I will rate yours at this time.

    Regards,

    Jim Hoover

    Dear Boris Dizhechko,

    On the key points, I fully agree with You. Indeed, space has a certain set of physical properties and therefore it is matter or substance. Of course, the properties of this substance are different from the properties, for example, of an electron. But the available properties are sufficient for the recognition of space as a substance. Gravity as a phenomenon in one way or another is related to the properties of space. Regarding energy. If any potential energy is a hidden form of kinetic energy, then any substance that has its own energy must consist of structures or elements that have zero rest mass and are moving at the speed of light. For example, an electron can be a ring-shaped closed string that has zero rest mass and rotating at the speed of light. Under these conditions, the zero mass of the string forms the usual non-zero mass of the electron. Other implementations are also possible, but some kind of movement or - in your terminology - vortices should be. I give You a high rating.

    Best wishes,

    Robert Sadykov

    Boris,

    This is a good essay and I sense some agreement with the overall direction. The problem with connecting to my own view is one of both perspective and interpretation. You are from more of a mechanical background, so having to fit pieces together, while I come from a more agricultural background, so the dynamic I see is thermodynamics, because I spend most of my time outside and to me understanding physics often just means not getting hurt, so I keep it simple, but effective.

    Consider in my essay, I pointed out that space is both infinite and absolute(perfect equilibrium, as in absolute zero). Now consider the two sides of the cosmic convection cycle, of radiation expanding to infinity, or as far as it can go, before fading to neutrality, as mass coalesces into black holes, pulling into stillness. Which are really the eye of the storm and as the energy radiates and jets back out.

    So what I try to say is that space is not "physical," in the sense of being defined and thus limited. As infinity and equilibrium are not physical properties. The Big Bang theory tries to argue that space is finite and flexible, but that is like saying zero is still something, because it is a number. No. Nothing is not something. To be physical means something has definition and motion. Like a temperature of absolute zero can only be inferred, not actually measured, because measurement requires a connection with a measuring device and thus some motion. Nothing has no physical properties, because it is not physical, but infinity and equilibrium are not physical, so they need no cause. Yet everything, including all the math and all the numbers, are between zero and infinity. Nothing and everything.

    So that I why I think we need to not try to make space physical.

    I can understand why people like to think of space as physical, because the very act of thinking is about boundaries and definitions, so it is like seeing beyond thought.

    Regards,

    John B Merryman

      The consciousness of the people resists the recognition of the identity of space and matter Descartes, because they used to think that I live in an empty space - it is convenient for them. While there was no reason to think otherwise. However, there will come a time when the level of education of the people will depend on their understanding of this identity. This requires the necessity to eliminate the difficulties in science. Fundamental should save our thinking, i.e. to be simple and straightforward. Physical space, which for Descartes is a matter that is the basis for fundamental theories in science.

      You might like to look at the sky and it seems to you empty infinite space in which it moves large and small body. However, this impression is deceptive. According to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes, space is matter that moves. When Copernicus asserted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, it had, according to Descartes, to add that along with the Earth revolves around the Sun, all the solar space. Space is what built the world.

      If the believer to ask, where is God? He will answer - in the sky. When you look into infinite space and I think that is the body of God, that needs to be asked, and how it works? The answer is simple, all the changes around and our weight is the result of his actions. In space contains information about changing the world. Time is a synonym of total moving

      Boris,

      The problem with the monotheistic concept of God is it assumes a spiritual absolute would be an ideal from which we fell, when it would be an essence from which we rise.

      More the raw consciousness of the new born child, than the hard won wisdom of the old man. In physics terms, more the field, than the point particle. We think consciousness is an effect of thinking, but it is the other way around. Thinking is how we express consciousness. Consciousness is the medium, thought is the message.

      Consciousness is a process, not an entity. Thoughts are the entities produced by the process of consciousness. An essence bubbling up, rather than the top down forms it assumes.

      Regards,

      John

      John ,

      The space is called a field if every point has a potential.

      The principle of identity of physical space and matter allows us to extend physics to living matter. For this we need to pay attention to the fact that matter within the body is the same as outside it. Our brain creates an image of the outside world not within themselves and in the space around themselves. This image of the outside world has an active nature, as it controls the body.

      Sincerely,

      Boris

      Boris,

      We are a part of our context. There is no more dualism between the organism and the ecosystem, than between the mind and the body. It is just that our minds function by freezing moments, then making distinctions and judgements. Information is much more about the differences, than the continuities. Then we focus on the most distinct, so it is any wonder nothing seems to fit together, when we look at it most closely, but it all just flows along, when we are just being there and taking it in?

      We are particles of focus in a field of consciousness.

      John,

      We are part of the space, which for Descartes is a matter. No more dualism between matter and space, between mind and body. Consciousness arises when a body appears the ability to create in space the image of the external world and to remember him for discernment and judgment. In the center of this image of the external world is the body that created it and which is actively positioning itself to prolong its existence.

      Sincerely, Boris.

      Boris,

      Thank you very Much! That gave me a 7, which logically gives me a lot more readers. I have to say I didn't enter this contest with any intentions, other than participating in the discussions. Which should be evident in my lack of editing. Suffice to say, I'm used to not being taken seriously, yet various people have liked the point, given my score and that I know a got a few down votes to lower it.

      I really did like your essential argument and understand Decartes is a big influence, but it does fuzz the observation a bit, at least for me, not being as big a fan of him. Consequently I couldn't make it a quid pro quo and give you a ten, but considered it worth a nine.

      Regards,

      John

      Thank you Joe for the appreciation of the New Cartesian Physics. That means I have to improve it.

      Boris Dizhechko

      Boris,

      You are something of an artist. You paint with very grand ideas.

      I see some similarity in your thinking and mine. The derivation you present in Section 3 is similar to the hypothesis that I presented in the last essay contest. I took the Lorentz Transform and added to it the term (v/c)i. That made their sum equal to Euler's Equation. Essentially, that produced the right triangle that you use.

      In Sections 4 and 5, you present ideas that are similar to the form of the Maxwell Equations that I was taught.

      Best Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

        Gary, I thinkin in order to develop our ideas, which coincided, by the use of quaternions.

        New Cartesian Physics needs your support to develop further.

        I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

        Dear Boris,

        Sorry for my late reaction to your post on my essay.

        Descartes had the combination of mathematics, physics and philosophy, which in our present time is not much seen, listening to someone like him is so advisable.

        Also, his infinitesimal calculus gave a method to work with something that is difficult to understand in the "real" world.

        "Cogito ergo sum" is one of my favourite thoughts, only I have made a difference by accepting that "thinking" is a quality of Consciousness. Only the consciousness as I see it is NOT the result OF COMPLEXITY, but complexity is a result of consciousness, (as you may have read in my essay).

        Space and matter are both the same "emerging phenomena", at which I add also TIME.

        We are the same age Boris, I was born in July 1945 in Holland and live in France now for 20 years. I appreciated your essay highly and hope that will do the same to

        mine

        best regards

        Wilhelmus de Wilde

          Wilhelmus de Wilde, Descartes was determined to create a theory of everything. He said: "give me matter and I will build the whole world." The space had been the matter that moves. Would be great if this idea of the Great French philosopher, mathematician and physicist suddenly helped to overcome the current crisis in physics.

          I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko