Essay Abstract

In order to build a reasonable model of our environment one of the first thinks we have to fulfill is to use a reference system our model is to build in. Since 1637 when René Descartes proposed the so called "Cartesian Coordination System", scientists used this with only few alternatives (spherical and cylindrical systems) for special cases. In this essay some undesirable properties of this system have been shown and a new system called "Natural Coordination System" (NCS) is proposed. After disclose of its basic properties some critical points are discussed, most of them straightly related to the fundamental questions put for the present contest. Above all, NCS has the potentiality to unbind thinkers' mind in their endeavor trying to unify all aspects of the whole universe in a scientific way of thinking; away from the well known separation between deterministic physical sciences and philosophy or any other "theoretical" science like sociology and theology or even arts e.g. poetry, music etc.

Author Bio

Author is a lecturer in Chemistry department, University of Ioannina in Greece. His interest in fundamental physics started from his early childhood trying to perceive emptiness, in its purest form, during night's relaxation (he is happy that he is still trying ...).

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Ioannis

Thank you for an excellent essay, and I agree entirely with Bragg. I think you've hit a fundamental point on Descartes simplistic basic co-ordinates. I touch on this in my own essay (2020 Vision), but due to a 'conceptual realisation' have been able to distil it to the simplest of 'reality' based models.

This also allowed completion of the circle to show a role for 'negative' numbers in relativity. This turned out to be analogous to a simple case of Doppler shift one way from 0 entering an inertial frame, (compression or extension) and having a negative formula to renormalise on exiting the frame back to the original state (frame). i.e. Acceleration in opposite directions - allowing a relevance of the term 'deceleration' back into science.

I conclude we've suffered a major failure in conceptual thinking ability and nature really is far more simple and real than we have ever imagined, but that does not make me special, we all think differently, and I'm far from yet entirely grasping the subtleties of your NCS. In principle however I fully support your views, particularly that revealing the solutions depend on re-unification of a nature divided only by man.

My own model is almost to simple to believe but still too demanding of conceptual agility to initially comprehend, I'd be interested in your views, but hope you can conceptualise it better than I have NCS so far!

Best wishes

Peter

  • [deleted]

Hi and happy new year dear Ioannis,

Congratulations for your beautiful essay.

Descartes was a big rationalist,the method seems essential for the real physicality.

I see the sphere like fundamental.It's logic in fact .

For me the elementary particles are spheres and our Universe is a sphere in optimization.

This evidence is logic, verifiable and rational.Their rotations and volumes imply the complexity and specificity in 3D(That's why I invented the theory of spherization QUANTUM SPHERES .....COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES....UNIVERSAL SPHERE.) and a time constant of evolution.

The NCS is relevant.

Thanks for your essay.

ps the poetry is the cries of hope like the music is a cry of harmony.

Seneque will say to hopes that they are reals and Siddartha Gottama that love and compassion are an other evidence.

The cries of hope above the cries of suffering.

we were we are we shall be..............

Regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

Dear Sir,

We must congratulate you for your original thoughts. We have a totally different view on most of the subjects discussed by you. However, it will help to exchange our views with each other. We have published a book in which we have discussed many of the points raised by you. If you mail your postal address to mbasudeba@gmail.com, we will sent a copy of the same for your reference.

Regards,

basudeba

  • [deleted]

Hi all,

Dear Ioannis,

I liked your essay.

That said ,when you say that universe is expanding and the big crunch will permit a new big bang.

I don't really understand this point of vue.

Because the dynamic is unique and has only one oscillation.

Let's imagine a BB and an expansion, we can imagine an ultim aim for this Universe.Thus after an expansion, a contraction appears at the maximum volume of the dynamic.The mass and density probably.

Thus it exists a contraction towards a kind of perfect harmony between quantum and cosmological spheres.

That's why an unique dynamique is essential.1 exp. and 1 contr.

That implies a contraction, a single contraction.

Now the real ask is this one, are we still in expansion or are we already in the contraction?

If the lattices between entangled spheres are linked in the two senses.Thus we can see this contraction of space (or the expansion.)

In this line of reasoning,the Universal Sphere is seen like a foto of our quantum entanglement and its pure finite number.

The volumes take all their sense of rationality.In the quantization of mass (volumes of entangled spheres),and the volume of the universal sphere.

Best Regards

Steve

7 days later

Thank you all for your positive remarks,

Dear Peter,

I will read your essay soon and you will have my views. Preliminary, I would say that our conceptual thinking ability is highly distorted by negative numbers and orthogonality both result of Cartesian coordinates. Hence I would be extremely conscious to any role for negative numbers.

"... nature really is far more simple and real than we have ever imagined...":

I feel that as far as real part of reality (e.g. length and velocity) is concerned this is true. When virtual part is included (e.g. force, field, wave, energy, entropy) nature is incomprehensible to human mind without accepting any inexplicable axiom.

Dear basudeba,

I would be happy to discus any aspect of the subjects my essay deals with. I sent you an e-mail.

Dear Steve,

I do not know your theory of spherization so my response can't be based on this.

"Because the dynamic is unique and has only one oscillation.":

Is the pendulum dynamic (it has not only one oscillation)? I consider it dynamic as it moves with varied velocity.

"Now the real ask is this one, are we still in expansion or are we already in the contraction?":

Galaxies depart from each other, so we are expanding in real terms.

"If the lattices between entangled spheres are linked in the two senses.Thus we can see this contraction of space (or the expansion.)

In this line of reasoning,the Universal Sphere is seen like a foto of our quantum entanglement and its pure finite number.":

In figure 5 it is shown the projection of entangled points P and P' on the plane(infinity/2) for 2D space. If we rotate virtual sphere π/2 round axis S-E, P' coincides with P (the unique reality of P-P').

In 3D space we could project entangled points on the "present sphere surface" (radius r, see Fig. 8). This projection is actually a foto of our "finite present universe" (finite as our universe is always finite and present meaning the present quantum time - moment).

Best wishes to everybody

Ioannis.

    For P' to coincide P the angle of rotation is π and not π/2.

    Sorry,

    Ioannis

    • [deleted]

    Hi all,

    Dear Ioannis,

    In fact, we can't consider our Universe like a pendulum ,it's totally different,I say that our univers is a sphere and has only one expansion at the maximum volume and after a contraction, unique also towards the perfect equilibrium between all these spheres(quantum spheres and cosmological spheres ).(, you know for me a sphere is a star, a planet, a moon, a BH, our quantum particles, and this and that like the circle it's foundamental)

    You can t compare our Universe as virtual furthermore, our universe is logic and rational.

    FOR A CONCRETE UNDERSTANDING OF MY THEORY,you must focus on rationality and not on virtuality.

    What I say is simple, here is my gauge for beginning.

    Quantum spheres.....cosmological spheres....UNIVERSAL SPHERE.you shall see dear that it exists only 1 universe and only one oscillation in a general point of vue for the expansion and the contraction.

    I see that like a beating of heart.The uniqueness becomes essential.

    Thus of course you shall understand the meaning of relativity in analyzing our past perceptions.

    In this line of reasoning, we see indeed the expansions with galaxies.

    Now don't forget that we see always our past!!!

    It's important for the maximum volume of the universal sphere and the begining of the contraction towards this balance between spheres.You shall understand the increase of entropy, the increase of mass, the decrease of space because it exists an ultim aim for the universal sphere and its universal center, the biggest volume, this central sphere.We turn in a specific dance of rotations spinals and orbitals.The contraction is logic like the expansion but only respecting the unique oscillation.In fact it's the volumes of spheres which become relevant.

    ps for the quantum number, this number is finite and the entanglement is a serie of fractalized volumes.The center is the main volume.

    Now the rotations are proportionals.IMPORTANT this number for the ultim quantum entanglement is the same than our Universal sphere, and its center and all its cosmological spheres turning around this center also.Like a foto relativistic of our universal sphere.

    Regards

    Steve

    • [deleted]

    In fact, that can be seen like this,

    "Spinal and orbital rotations of all spheres, whether quantum or cosmological, explains everything!!!"

    If and only if our foundamental and rational and logical equations and laws are respected of course and evidently.

    Our quantum spheres build in time space evolution our cosmological spheres and its lifes and consciousness and intelligences....towards this harmony between these evolved mass ,the optimization, the spherization, the improvement are logics .

    Regards

    Steve

    Ioannis

    "When virtual part is included (e.g. force, field, wave, energy, entropy) nature is incomprehensible to human mind without accepting any inexplicable axiom."

    Under current paradigms that is undeniably true. I believe, (in fact it is rather beyond 'belief'!) that I have found the key to allow the mists to be cleared and the logical explanation seen. I think if you read the essay you'll have more chance of finding that eureka moment than most. Do let me know.

    Peter

    Dear Steve,

    I have the feeling that we discuss to ourselves (and not to each other). I said from the very beginning that

    "I do not know your theory of spherization so my response can't be based on this."

    Unfortunately, this continues to be the case. Please give me a reference of your theory.

    I do not intent to continue our monologues without understanding between us.

    When I (didn't) said the universe acts as a pendulum I meant that it starts from BB (S), goes to r=r, then (goes) to r=infinity/2 (planar), then to r=r' (closer to E), then to E (end), then to r=r', and the same in opposite direction (like a pendulum). Or like the beatings of the heart (expansion, contractions, expansion ...).

    What is the uniqueness of the beatings of heart? Of course if we consider only one beat we restrict ourselves to this beat and we do not care about heart. I care how heart works and not only for one beat of it (although the mechanism of the beating is unknown).

    I try to be as rational as possible but never ignore that we will not ever conceive our universe to its wholeness. It is time to try to deal the unknowable part (virtual) in a rational way and not to ignore it or to force real part to accommodate virtuality by mixing all together.

    Best regards,

    Ioannis

    • [deleted]

    Dear Ioannis,

    Well,I just try to explain you some foundamentals about our entropy and his ultim equation.The geometry and algebras dance in a sphere.

    I translate my french.You shall understand better I think humbly.

    There are interesting discussions as there is time lost due to the tears of confusion.

    The objective realities are the sources of our subjectivities.But some laws exist fortunally.

    It is also necessary that rationality is the mother of the fundamentals, in order to perceive the real meaning of our universe uniquity if I can say.

    The beats of all things come from this single harmonic oscillation, blowing his life by such rotations of these small quantum spheres.

    Monologues vain wandering the maze of pride and arrogance are as important to me than a single drop from an ocean.

    I'm not here on a clear plattform for such childishness.

    You talk about references, I'm sorry but I prefer to buy and read good books and theories and equations from rationalists from past and present.

    It seems to me that the winding paths of thinkers sometimes become confused and lost, through non-rational subjective overlays, thus generating, wells errors.

    On that note, I wish you a very good contest.

    But remember that the realities are rational and that subjectivity can only be effective if the comments and observations are just as rational.

    It's the reason why we have an international laguage about physics and maths.And thus we have concrete datas and experiments, technologies and models and inventions.That it's rational like the sphere.

    Best Regards

    Steve

    7 days later
    • [deleted]

    Dear Ioannis,

    I agree with you in that negative numbers were introduced in physics at the time of Descartes. Perhaps you can tell me some details. Admittedly, I did not yet read much of work by Descartes. I learned from a little booklet that he hesitated using negative numbers. Unfortunately, the booklet was a translation into Russian from an original English written booklet by the Hungarian Corneliusz Lanscos (Loewy) who referred to Einstein. Maybe, you can tell me more.

    By the way, I also noticed that Fourier tried to integrate not from minus infinity but from zero to plus infinity.

    We have to be careful. I am not sure whether Demokrit or someone else, maybe Moses, was the first who suggested atomism.

    Eckard

      Dear Eckard,

      A) For the history of negative numbers:

      1) http://nrich.maths.org/public/viewer.php?obj_id=5961

      2) http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Negative_Numbers

      3) "...Lazare Carnot (1753-1823), member of the Academy of Science and famous mathematician:

      " to really obtain an isolated negative quantity, it would be necessary to cut off an effective quantity from zero, to remove something of nothing: impossible operation. How thus to conceive an isolated negative quantity? "; Geometry of position, 1803.

      ... The numbers can be only positive; it is the quantities that can be negative or positive. A negative quantity is defined by an opposition to a positive quantity: a path in a direction, a path in the contrary direction; a profit, a debt... ";http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/educacion/3/Usrn/penelope/uk_confboye.htm#elements

      Negative numbers seem to "work" when the final result is positive but when the result is negative (

      (continuation)

      Negative numbers seem to "work" when the final result is positive but when the result is negative (

      (Hoping for a success ... in sending this reply)

      Dear Eckard,

      A) For the history of negative numbers:

      1) http://nrich.maths.org/public/viewer.php?obj_id=5961

      2) http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Negative_Numbers

      3) "Lazare Carnot (1753-1823), member of the Academy of Science and famous mathematician:

      " to really obtain an isolated negative quantity, it would be necessary to cut off an effective quantity from zero, to remove something of nothing: impossible operation. How thus to conceive an isolated negative quantity? "; Geometry of position, 1803.

      " The numbers can be only positive; it is the quantities that can be negative or positive. A negative quantity is defined by an opposition to a positive quantity: a path in a direction, a path in the contrary direction; a profit, a debt... "

      http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/educacion/3/Usrn/penelope/uk_confboye.htm#elements

      Negative numbers seem to "work" when the final result is positive but when the result is negative their physical meaning is none.

      After all "negative numbers are distortion of physical logic".

      B) Who is the first?

      "Leucippus (5th c. BCE) is the earliest figure whose commitment to atomism is well attested. He is usually credited with inventing atomism. According to a passing remark by the geographer Strabo, Posidonius (1st c. BCE Stoic philosopher) reported that ancient Greek atomism can be traced back to a figure known as Moschus or Mochus of Sidon, who lived at the time of the Trojan wars. This report was given credence in the seventeenth century: the Cambridge Platonist Henry More traced the origins of ancient atomism back, via Pythagoras and Moschus, to Moses. This theologically motivated view does not seem to claim much historical evidence, however."

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/#1

      Regards,

      Ioannis

      • [deleted]

      Dear Ioannis,

      Thank you for the details. I was trained as an EE, I trained EEs for decades, and therefore I like linearizing and complex calculus. Hopefully you will nonetheless enjoy the essay I recently submitted.

      Incidentally, are you aware of Vaihinger and Christian Betsch?

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      Dear Ioannis,

      Lazare Carnot died in 1823 in Magdeburg. Magdeburg's Otto von Guericke University was build close to the location where he was buried. Experts of thermodynamics discovered by chance a stone with the name Carnot. They were excited although the grave did not belong to their idol Sadi Carnot who was the son of Lazare. Nonetheless, a memorial of Lazare Carnot was erected. It shows his head on top of three twisted against each other slabs of rock, symbolizing changing political situations. So far I only was aware of him as a politician and engineer. I am surprised that he also dealt with justification of differential calculus. Maybe, he did not understand that it is linked with linearisation, i.e. use of positive and negative numbers?

      What about Christian Betsch, he won in 1925 a 1,000,000 Mark price in a competition organized by the friends of the "as if" with his book "Fiktionen in der Mathematik" perhaps because he did not hurt proponents of set theory. In particular Adolf Fraenkel appreciated it.

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      Dear Ioannis,

      When your message was cut, you might have used a symbol that is not tolerated here, maybe the symbol for smaller than.

      Eckard

      Dear Eckard,

      Thank you for your informative replies (about Vaihinger and Christian Betsch). However, I would like to emphasize that my essay takes the unconceivable reality as a logical (and mathematical) fact (according to Godel's work, although many refuse to accept the reality they can not perceive) and tries to formulate a coordination system that unconceivable part of reality could be accommodated in. The philosophical consequences are left to the readers that unfortunately find to these an easy field of critisism. In other words, I added nothing more, on these aspect, than Godel has found decades before.

      Regards, Ioannis