Very nicely written Mr. Kirakosyan!
I do like your peaceful way of putting things together from an axiomatic point of view. Further words are useless...
I read and rate it accordingly.
If you would have the pleasure to read a related essay (also starting from an axiom) I will fully appreciate.
Dear Gevorg,
Your essay was fun, brilliant, well written, original, and insightful. My only criticism is that your criticism to physicists and their mathematics was too soft.
Best regards,
Cristi
To M-r Erik:
You says: //.. theoretical physics of today depends on more than 100 years old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, that are made in error. This article illustrates the need for more critical thinking to reveal old fundamental errors.//
In my view, in this lines contains the main cause of nowadays trouble and deep crisis of theoretical physics and I have tried say almost the same in my critical work. The fortune of critics however not so sweet and not so many people who want to hearing them. Your suggestions on possibility to using nowadays tech opportunities is very right and logic-natural. There however are other question - is this will favorable for the present rulers of modern science or not? We can imagine what huge changes can be follow if they will allow such kinds of global revision in the physics. So, I see the present science as one huge galleon that moves by inertia, which practically is impossible to stop and to change its course! So, I am very pessimistic that anybody will hearing you and me to over-viewed something. But we must try to do our duty hoping it can sometime to be listen. That is why I want to supporting you, (despite I am little bit doubtful to ether) I hope you will find time to check my work and to say some words, that will valuable to me.
So, I wish you successes in this contest!
Best regards
George Kirakosyan
Dear Gevorg, I came to the conclusion that the source of causation is the physical space, which for Descartes is a matter and the structure of which contains information about how the world will develop. The physical space is found the Foundation for fundamental theories.
I wish you success! Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris
Dear George,
I read with great interest your extremely interesting and important critical essay, carried out in the spirit of a deep Cartesian doubt with ideas and an outcome that are aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in the philosophical foundations of science. The crisis in the foundations of science led eventually to a crisis in Global society. Today, more than ever, it is necessary to compete with fundamental ideas, primarily in cosmology .... 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). I believe that today there is a need for a conceptual Ontological revolution, to which the crisis of understanding and the modern Information Revolution pushes. The key problem is the construction of a comprehensive structure of the "First Beginning" of the Universum or the Great Causal Structure. Look at my ideas .
Best regards,
Vladimir
Dear George Kirakosyan,
I agree with you that "physics transforms into a kind of doctrine that becomes beyond objective criticism by definition". Indeed, physics has become a very inertial science, which does not always notice big and small contradictions. Contradictions also exist in the sphere of relativity and gravity, for example, the problem of the energy of the gravitational field. On the other hand, inertia allows physics not to change the direction of development every few years, as happens with some other sciences. I agree with you that there are a lot of physical assumptions in quantum mechanics that are not logically related to one another. It remains to be hoped that quantum mechanics is at the very beginning of the path, and with time the situation is normalized.
Best wishes,
Robert Sadykov
Dear Robert
I am fully share your principles of judgments. It is very right your point about controversial of existing interpretation of gravity phenomena, especially on relation to non equality of different representation of gravity energy. It just show that the physical essence of gravity remains still yet unclear on 100% as it has in the time of Great Newton. The successes of GR as will as of many other alternative equal theories we must see as the technical advance only, that we need explain yet from the cognitive viewpoint. From this side, I think really that your approach can be very valuable - i.e. to look gravity as aftermath of some kinetic process.
This is not only empty-favorable words, but the dynamical imagination of gravity can be change everything in this sphere and bring to opening this unsolved great mystery of nature. Thus, I can surely tell that you move on the right way, then I need to wish you success in the contest.
Best Regards
P.S.
Check here (Article) when you will find good time.
George,
just to say I think your comment; "new physics" has lost its main analytical tool that was our ability of logical thinking is the comment of the constest, just above Chandra Royhaudhouri's "physics progresses one funeral at a time' after Planck).
I think it's time to regain the right skills and escape from "shut up and use your calculator" which only ever was a provisional measure while things were "too difficult" to understand (Feynman). I hope a classic QM may help start a revolution - but maybe in a few eons! I hope you'll also support Decaln Traill's computer confirmation of the ontology in mine.
Score boost going on now.
Best of luck in the run-in & judging.
Peter
George Kirakosyan
I have read your essay and I am very impressed. I find it important that you state that most of the really prominent scientists were very uncertain about their own ideas. I like your honest approach.
We both seem to be critical thinkers and are prepared to look backwards. Too many so called dissidents only want to INVENT new theories of their own. They are not good at DISCOVERING errors in existing theory.
Do not be too pessimistic. If we can point out a clear new way we can hope for a change.
Regarding the ether I will go further than you. The ether was abolished by someone new in physics, but the same person, after lifelong studies in physics as a professor, wanted the ether back.
Regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson
My dear Erik
It's nice to hearing you again, especially with the critical part of your works (and somewhat also of my). That is very remarkable that you honestly opposing to dominating majority, that is why I seen my duty to supporting you as much as it was possible. Thank you for your kindly words which really was valuable for me. And I am a little bit disappointed only that we have a certain difference on relation to ether. You mark that "I follow to patent engineer who had rejected the ether." I want just tell you here - sorry my dear it is not so, because the matter is more serious. By the way, Einstein actually does not remove the ether but he only declare this verbally. And the ether continued functioning in his theories .... just under new name! So, he has say one thing and actually doing an other thing. This fact noticed by other Jewish physicist Mario Rabinowitz - before of me. So, this matter is very interesting that has some history. If you wish then I can send you some references - after this battle of course. And now I can only wish you good healthy and wealthy, in your life!
My best wishes,
George
George Kirakosyan
Thanks again for good words.
You may be right regarding the history behind ether. I am not well informed in that part. What is important is that we today need an ether to describe light and gravity.
We have had a good discussion and I think that some day we can point more clear in a new direction and truth will dominate.
With best regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson
Many thanks for kindly words and nice discussion!
George Kirakosyan
Thanks for interesting discussions. If you read this you may be interested in my last blog at:
Best regards from _____________ John-Erik Persson
