Steve Dufourny Dear Steve!
Each person individually experiences the world and its surrounding nature. This experience leads to the creation of various models of the world, nature, and the foundations of the universe.
1). You have your model - this is your own theory of spherization (evolution of the Universe ... ).
2). For the religious party, this is a model of divine creation of nature.
3). Philosophical parties (of the bourgeois-idealistic persuasion) also have their own numerous models and ideas about the world around us, about nature.
4). For modern physicists and the entire modern physics community, this is the scientific picture of the world (SPW). This picture is based on and comprises the theory of modern physics (TMP), the theory of relativity (GTR), the Standard Model of elementary particles (SMEP), the Big Bang theory (BBT), quantum theory, and so on.
5). The philosophy of dialectical materialism (PDM) of the Soviet period (the time of the USSR's existence) also has a general picture of the universe. This is a dialectical-materialist model of the universe. It is a beautiful and truthful, a true and scientific model of nature. It is a remarkable model. I became acquainted with this model at university. And it became my own model. But this model is incomplete in the sense that within its framework, the fundamental question of physics and all natural science was not posed and resolved. This is the question of the specific representation of matter in nature (the matter of nature). This is my first comment. My second comment concerns the concept of “space”." In this model, space was considered a property, the essence of nature. This was an erroneous concept.
6). I also have my own model of the universe.
This is the dialectical-materialistic YRA model of the foundations of nature and the universe. It is presented in my articles:
“Nature as an Objective Reality” https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSNAA ,
“ Once Again about Nature and its Material Principles”
https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSOAA .
My picture of the universe and nature is completely consistent with the scientific picture of the universe of the philosophy of dialectical materialism (PDM) of the Soviet period, taking into account two important additions regarding the understanding of space and regarding the specific representation of matter in nature.
Regarding the concept of “space” (“space-time”), I have my own distinct opinion. I believe that space as such, as some kind of natural entity or natural construct within nature itself, does not exist. This same negative understanding applies to the concept of “space-time” in General Relativity. Physicists themselves (the entire party of modern physics (PMP), the entire physics community) cannot provide us with real proof of the actual existence of space or space-time in nature. There is no such proof. The concepts of “space” or/and “space-time”, along with their existence in nature, are simply postulated in physics and in the theory of relativity (GTR).
In my “Theory of Nature”, I also postulate the following idea: “the space, as such, as some kind of natural entity, a natural structure, does not exist in nature itself”. I also have no direct evidence for this assertion.
But I have certain considerations in this case.
First, there is nature and there is the Universe. They are the receptacles of everything in nature. This is quite sufficient. And “space”, as a third receptacle, is simply superfluous here. After all, nature is simple and economical.
Secondly, proponents of the existence of space in nature believe that space is the bearer of a metric (length) in nature. But they themselves do not know how this metric is embedded in space itself.
Within the framework of my “Theory of Nature”, which talks about a quantum of matter (pulsating in the rhythm and tempo of nature), it is indicated that a grain of matter (the lower limit of the pulsation of a quantum of matter) is a material carrier of the natural standard of length (quantum of length). The diameter of a grain of matter is a quantum of length.
Every quantum of matter, every elementary particle (the upper limit of the pulsation of a quantum of matter), “carries with it” a quantum of length. So these arguments in favor of this role of space (the carrier of the metric of length) are also dismissed.
Another argument in favor of the existence of space is this: “space is the bearer of the dimensionality of the universe, of nature”. Modern physicists believe that “space” is three-dimensional, and “space-time” is four-dimensional.
But let us ask a simple question: “Is it so important for us to know and understand what the dimensions of nature, the Universe, are?”
The objective answer to this question is no. And I agree.
Thus, two important, most important (according to the supporters of the existence of space in nature) arguments turn out to be untenable.
Another argument is this: “If we assume that space exists in nature and if it is Euclidean , then it must be infinite and an infinite amount of natural matter is required to construct it”.
But within the framework of my “Theory of Nature”, I present my arguments that there is no infinity in nature other than the eternal existence of nature itself. So this assumption (in the particular case of Euclidean space) also turns out to be untenable.
The assumption of the existence of space in nature imposes impossible demands on nature. It is simpler to assume the absence of space in nature as a natural entity. This also corresponds to the principle “Nature is simple and economical”.
But my first addition to the model of the general picture of the universe, nature, concerns the specific representation of matter in nature.
I believe that all those theories about nature (about the Universe) that ignore the matter of nature, its specific representation in nature (as the content of elementary particles) are already fundamentally false.
I attribute this primarily to the theory of modern physics (TMP).
The fact of nature that “the content of elementary particles is ‘pure’ concrete matter of nature” is obvious, right under the noses and eyes of all physicists for over a century. Yet this fact remains unrecognized. This means that the TMP, at its core, lacks a clear, precise, unambiguous, correct, and accurate understanding of the matter of nature.
Yet nature is fundamentally material and dialectical. And physics is the primary science of nature.
And so, within the framework, at the very core of physics (TMP), it turns out that the matter of nature (the most important essence of nature!) is not adequately represented, not represented concretely, not represented in its entirety.
What can be said about such a theory?
Only one thing can be said: “This is a fundamentally false theory”!
This is precisely what TMP is; it is a fundamentally false theory of nature.
Matter is not properly and not adequately represented within TMP. This corresponds to anti-materialism and the dominance of idealism in the foundations of physics. And hence, one direct step toward the anti-scientific nature of TMP. A lie in the foundations of a theory is the twin sister of its anti-scientific nature.
Thus, the objective conclusion is: “The Theory of Modern Physics (TMP) is a false and anti-scientific theory”!
That's it, dear Steve!
That's it, ladies and gentlemen!
Do you agree or disagree with these arguments regarding the false and unscientific nature of the theory of modern physics (TMP)?
It should be considered that the General Theory of Relativity (GTR), the Standard Model of Elementary Particles (SMEP), and the Big Bang Theory (BBT) stand in the same category as the TMP. All of them are, by and large, false and unscientific theories.
Please express your opinion, dear readers.
Please express your opinion, dear Steve .
Best wishes
Robert Yusupov
