Has the Time Come ...? by Ioannis Hadjidakis

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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 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

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

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