Fundamental: Light, the Way by James Lee Hoover

Dear James Lee Hoover, light is the vibration of space, which is the matter, so said Descartes. You due That's interesting. my essayFQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. 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.

Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating after becoming acquainted with the Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, it is end of some questions.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

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.FQXi основополагающиС... РІ РќРѕРІРѕР№ Р"екартовой физики Dizhechko Р'РѕСЂРёСЃ Семенович

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. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich and leave a rating.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris .

Dear Jim Hoover, I appreciate your paper. Light makes the world tangible, as it is a wave of space, which according to Descartes is matter. Moving the waves of space gather information about the objects that they are unable to penetrate.

Thank you for your questions to my Essay. Do not allow FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris

James,

I always look forward to your thoughtful and poetic essays. This one put me in mind of something Kevin Brown (Reflections on Relativity)wrote: "This image of a photon as a single unified event with a coordinated emission and absorption seems unsatisfactory to many people, partly because it doesn't allow for the concept of a 'free photon', i.e., a photon that was never emitted and is never absorbed. However, it's worth remembering that we have no direct experience of 'free photons', nor of any 'free particles', because ultimately all our experience is comprised of completed interactions. (Whether this extends to gravitational interactions is an open question".)

In other words, though the world being bathed in electromagnetic radiation gives us the means to view time backward, it doesn't tell us anything about the creation moment. We don't know if a photon was ever emitted.

A delightful, sensitive essay. Thank you.

All best,

Tom

Dear James,

Here we are again all together.

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of the highest praise.

I am glad for our mutual understanding «most likely will continue to redefine the meaning of fundamental, knowing that scientific knowledge and what we deem the fundamental evolve, requiring constant editing, revision and refinement».

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Dear James,

I read your wonderful essay with great interest. You give deep ideas and make important conclusions aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. To "grasp" the original structure of the Cosmos today, it is necessary to maximally support competitive ideas, primarily in cosmology .

"In the Beginning Was the Logos .../ Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος ... " and Philosophy together with Science should give the deepest constructive interpretation to the "Logos / λόγος". 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). That's right: The Way. It means Meaning. Meaning is the basis of being (Hegel). The Universum is filled with meanings from the "Beginning". Light, the Way, Meaning, Structure are fundamental. The logical structure of a language is identical to the ontological structure of the world. (Wittgenstein). My highest score.

Best wishes!

Vladimir

Dear James Lee Hoover,

I enjoyed reading your interesting and informative Essay. It reflects on your vast and varied experience. I will continue to be in touch with you even after this contest is over.

QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

Dear James:

I enjoyed reading your essay and agree with the main theme that understanding light is fundamental. However, as I show in my paper, to understand light (photon), one must answer the question as to how a photon accelerates to the speed of light from zero when it is born. This understanding then changes the whole picture of reality - big bang never happened, universe is eternal, light is the source of dark energy, time is only a relative reality in the frame of matter etc.

This new picture of reality then shows the light, the way, providing a basis for purpose and meaning to the universe and life in it.

Best Regards

Avtar

dear Lee

I began to read your interesting article and initially note the sincerity and truthfulness of your thinking. In my opinion these are the main qualities that we have lose in our aspirations to achieve to a perfect and reliable natural science. I sure now that fundamental science has come to a final crisis that is unlikely to be overcome without a deep moral re-education of thinkers. However, I very much doubt that this is a solvable problem for the near future.

I just laugh to invite you to look at my work to exchange our visions on this subject. I hope on your answer.

Best Regards

I am sure you mean well, but Eccles. 3:7.

Dear Jam,

You says very important thing: // Fundamental then is irrelevant if a conscious being does not exist to point out that which is fundamental.// From above just derives that the "fundamentality" is a category for the human, so that it can be in development, change with time etc. That I see is very right definition as it also has reflected many times in the history of science. (Maybe you remembering Einstein's exercises with the "card houses!")

I mean the science goes not on the straight line to the known target, but we are forced often to destroy all of almost finished buildings and start again at the very beginning. This opportunity seems in your essay (as I am trying to say the same.) And the idea of starting everything with the light seems to me just as a Great!

Then I can you say welcome and try to support only.

Be well my Dear!

George

Nicely written MR. Hoover

Very nice way of putting things together. Your argumentation is clear and I think further words are useless. Read and rate it accordingly.

According to your last words, which say that the concept of "Fundamental" must keep evolving, I will appreciate your opinion, regarding this essay on such a proposal

Respectfully,

Silviu

James,

As 'nothing exists without motion' I'm pleased to say I'm now now helping move your score along and up a bit (with an 8) as my initial comments (which I can't now seem to find here!??) I believe you did score mine. Thanks.

Best of luck in the run in.

Peter

Hi James

I am sorry it has taken me so long to form a reply for you. I had read your essay some time back, however neglected to reply at that time. I am presented with a delema of sorts. On the one hand I greatly appreciate your writing and descriptive style. This aspect of your work I rate highly. The delema I face is that you're highly focused on describing a conventional scientific basis, certain aspects of which I have come to doubt. You have read my essay, so you will appreciate the reservations I hold toward big bang theory. So when you write toward so many aspects of the world within implication and context that big bang is assumed correct, it is misaligned with my prejudices.

However, my theory is misaligned with nearly every-bodies prejudice, for I cant be right if big bang is correct. So I hope people will suspend their prejudice, and judge my essay in terms of a whether it is a well formed argument, or novel or creative. Which is what you must have done to provide a favorable rating for me. And I thank you for. So I can judge you highly on the same basis.

It was difficult to know how to express this. I had to think on it before I could reply. I did believe in the big bang theory, but once I began puzzle solving I had to map where the limits and challenges where to conventional theory. And through this process I came to view the conventional approach as a patchwork quilt tied together with loose stitching. And there were patches which needed adding that the conventional approach couldn't accommodate, like complexity and order of the world.

The conventional approach carries to many contradictions for me. I cant look at it now without them being glaringly obvious. I did not write about them because thats a sure way to write a poor rating essay. But That doesn't mean I cant form their argument. If you start looking for contradictions, and cataloging them. You discover there are many

I judge you are a person who can hear this point of view and understand. Thank you for your patients James

Kind regards

Steve

Dear James,

The rule that the speed of light cannot be exceeded is the driving factor in my cosmological concepts so your choice of light as fundamental resonates with mine. Your essay is informative and well written (your English skills show) and deserving of the highest rating I gave it.

Good luck,

Peter