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

        Hi Boris,

        I agree with the idea that space is filled. The 'space-matter' is not all uniform and so needs differentiating into its different kinds of actualization. I think that saying space is 'matter' is potentially confusing because of the particular word chosen. The rest mass of the non atomic or sub atomic 'space-matter' is also a problem because space without sub atomic particles or objects is taken to be void of mass (rather than energy) and measurements are calibrated that way. So it doesn't fit the definition of matter, which is said to have rest mass. Volume is a little tricky too as we tend to think of that space that is not a part of the volume of an object as not being volume so the two, object and not object, can be separated. I just think another term might cause less problems.

        The idea of motion being circles is potentially a useful way of thinking about motion in the universe when there isn't propulsion taking an object out of the natural motion that would occur.

        I don't like the use of Einstein's Relativity to describe something quite different from relative perception happening deep within atoms. I don't think it applies. I also don't think that existence is at different times. So having time stopped in the centre of the atom isn't helpful in my opinion. As you will have read I consider foundational passage of time to be something very different from the signal transmission time considered by Einstein.

        Kind regards Georgina

          Dear Georgina , Time is a synonym for universal, total movement of space, which is matter. Your soup forever bubbling and boiling. We do not see the space that is in a state of physical vacuum, it is transparent as glass, but we see particles that have merged in the body. Corpuscles also created from space, which is matter and which rotates in the corpuscle. The rotation creates a centrifugal acceleration. Flux of a vector of this acceleration is mass. Multiply any mass on the gravitational constant and you get the value of the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration. Multiply the mass by the square of the speed of light, and you will get the energy that is accumulated in the corpuscle in the movement of space, which is matter.

          I was also against Einstein, but then I realized that all the paradoxes arise from the inertial reference systems with infinitely long numerical axes. If you take the inertial frame with an infinitely small numeric axes, it turns out all good. Nothing wrong with that in them time stops, no, because they are infinitely small.

          I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

          Dear Dizhechko

          If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

          A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it's central theme.

          Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

          My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn't then nebula gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

          Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

          For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

          My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

          By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

          To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

          Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

          Kind regards

          Steven Andresen

          Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

            Dear Dizhechko;

            I have read your essay on the New Cartesian Physics. I agree with you that modern physics is based on mathematical solutions to hypothesis that lead to results that could be interpreted in many ways. And it is true that those hypotheis lack foundation in reality.

            Your proposal has been a litle bit dificult for me to grasp; I hope we could discuss it further.

            Best wishes;

            Diogenes

            Dear Stephen Anderson, your comment is similar to a work of art. You write like Shakespeare.

            I answer briefly on three points, as they are seen in New Cartesian Physics.

            1. The Sun thermonuclear reactions are intermediate reactions. There stands out energy of rotation of the solar system.

            2. The interaction no between space and matter, so as space is matter.

            3. The possibility of evolved optimization inherent in the structure of physical space

            I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

            Thanks Dizhechko for your kind comments.

            Descartes dualism concerned the mind/soul/ghost vs.matter/machine. If we tie matter to space how does this resolve the mind/soul/ghost relation? I think you offer very interesting ideas and rate your effort well. I am glad you find solace in your theories and get rewards from them after living such a long life during an amazing period of human history.

            Thanks again,

            Jack

              Thank you, Jack, for your kind words. my dream came true in the form of a New Cartesian Physics . I'm here to convince everyone to use the principle of identity of space and matter to develop a theory of everything.

              Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

              Dear Boris,

              Very strong and deep ideas for overcoming the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. Yes, indeed today in science a neo-Cartesian revolution is needed to create new philosophical bases of knowledge.   I understand it as the Ontological revolution. Especially important is the competition of ideas in cosmology . Pavel Florensky made a good conclusion, which is topical for physicists and mathematicians: "Мы повторяем: миропонимание -- пространствопонимание./ We repeat: world understanding is spaceunderstanding." ... Physicists and poets should have a single picture of the Universum as an holistic generating process, filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E. Husserl).

              Best regards,

              Vladimir