The source of major flaws in current cosmology is not any discrepancy between mathematics and physics. It instead is the simple fact that current cosmology does not reflect reality.

A big bang scenario embodies a one shot philosophy, a creationism scenario. But reality must be eternal.

Looking for weak points in the big bang model is not constructive. Only finding an alternative is constructive.

The alternative is the eternal big universe spanned by a cosmic field. The cosmic field is capable to collect energy from moving gravitational fields. If the cosmic field has grown strong enough it is capable to penetrate into black hole matter and to revert the phase transition from neutron gas.

The neutron gas then decays to hydrogen and a new cycle begins. The cyclic processes are:

- Generation of energy in stars

- Building black holes, squeezing out the cosmic field from a condensed neutron gas

- Recollection of the generated energy in the cosmic field

The recycling processes are:

- Re-penetration of the cosmic energy field into black hole matter

- Re-shaping the cosmic energy density profile, which implements gravity, by a flow process. The flow process is caused by the immense energy loss of the cosmic field due to the reversion of the phase transition from neutron gas to black hole matter.

No theory can reflect external reality as such! So, the complaint that "current cosmology does not reflect reality" is too vague.

Now "a one shot philosophy, a creationism scenario" is only what experimentally characterized science can do. Some would try to obfuscate the creationism scenario therein due to their holding crass physicalism. (For clarifications, see https://www.researchgate.net/post/Minimal_Metaphysical_Physicalism_MMP_vs_Panpsychisms_and_Monisms_Beyond_Mind-Body_Dualism)

But your claim that "reality must be eternal" is too blanketing and vague too! The question that arises in any educated mind (not Pentecostal creationist minds and hardcore "rationalist" minds, both of whom -- educated or less educated -- tend to be headless in their claims) is: From where did you know this? ((Now, if you feel that I belong to any one of these groups, you may sas so! I will not be angry with you!!!!!!!!))

Do you mean that the part of reality that we can observe and experiment with is eternal? Or that all that exist (i.e., Reality) have been in existence and will be in existence on both aspects of the common notion of eternity? Or, do you mean that each part of all that exist (i.e., of Reality) will exist from the moment of its coming into existence? Etc. I can bring in even more sub-cases here. (See my book 2018, "Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and ....")

You said: "Looking for weak points in the big bang model is not constructive. Only finding an alternative is constructive." I have always held so: Fell systems by their roots, and not by their branches -- and we have a new system, which too must be felled at some time in the progress of science and and the Love of Wisdom.

And then comes a stealthily introduced statement: "The alternative is the eternal big universe spanned by a cosmic field." What proof is there to assert this? Asserting this as an empirical fact is impossible. Hence, we can only take this to be rationally probable. There can be rational arguments to prefer this. I have suggested some in my 2018. But I try to discuss there all sorts of sub-cases, that I could imagine, of a finite-content universe and of an infinite-content cosmic multiverse.

Yet another stealthily intrusive attempt is this: "The cosmic field is capable to collect (CAPABLE OF COLLECTING) energy from moving gravitational fields." If you speak of a cosmic field different from the merely mathematically posited one, you had to first show that as the only rational choice. Here, I think, you have introduced the commonly assumed almighty character of mathematics without physical justification!!! Against this is to be our common fight!

And you seem to say that the posited cosmic field is capable OF COLLECTING energy from moving gravitational fields. Are mathematically posited gravitational fields MOVING AROUND, or physically gravitational fields moving? Why should a separate cosmic field collect energy from it, if this cosmic field is a field due to the matter-energy within the physical universe? (I am sure that you are aware of how Einstein and many other field scientists have veiled the physicists' and physics students' mind with the mathematical conversion of fields into a superman.)

Are these two (cosmic fields and gravitational fields) only different conglomerations of entities, or two absolutely separate conglomerations with eternal origin and separation between them? I HOPE YOU SEE HOW PHYSICISTS ERR BY PRESUPPOSING MANY THINGS.

And then, after the half of your post, by mixing black holes, neutron stars, etc. with all these, you came to the conclusion about the GENERATION OF ENERGY IN STARS. Is this not a common practice among astrophysicists? Camouflaging unknown territories within a complexification of empirically known facts and results! How do black hole and neutron star processes become the originative sources of energy, which, as part of the cosmos, you presuppose as eternal? Why should an eternal stuff be originated from black holes and neutron stars in a miraculous manner?

As you will recognize here, the term origination is very tricky. Energy from black holes and neutron stars can at the most get converted into or displaced into being part of any other cosmic body or conglomeration of bodies.

Sir, I am not trying to accuse you of anything. This is a common practice in all sorts of physicists, astrophysicists, and cosmologists. I suggest that as much clarity as possible be brought in even before determining scientific terms, theoretical presuppositions, etc.

And let us define also very general concepts like space, time, spacetime, curvature, energy, matter, gravitation, etc. I point specifically at the notions of gravitation and cosmic fields that you have used here.

Recently I have come to know some neuroscientists or brain scientists who do this, especially by taking access to quantum non-locality and other such stuff, and camouflaging the subject matter in front of the readers. Another has converted the whole consciousness into an all-knowing holographic stuff, by use of the concept of non-locality in QM....

Thanks for this beautiful post. When I point out certain loopholes, please know that I am aware of such possibilities in my writing too. Feel free to point them out. I will not be offended. I can learn more.

I am sure that you will not shout out bad words at me, as some greats used to do in the famous discussion forum on "What are the refutations of general relativity?", in which we both have taken part contributing our opinions. I left that discussion because of the personal insecurity, anger, and vengeance that used to play out there from the simple personalities of some of them (who perhaps continue to be starved of love and recognition)...! You have been a witness to all that.

Raphael

Nobody cares about proclamations about ``flaws", major or minor, but in the mathematically consistent formulations, that agree with experiment. So it’s not enough to claim that a formulation has ``flaws"-all do. What matters is how to correct them.

The ``source of major flaws in cosmological theories'' is that theories are, necessarily, approximations.

However there's no such thing as a ``mathematics-to-physics application discrepancy''.

Stam Nicolis, I agree with you.

"Agreement with experiment" can, from the viewpoint of empirical demands understood broadly, can also be understood as including agreement with the demands of physical existence.

The whole import of what I have suggested above as requiring of scientists is such an agreement with the empirical demands of physical existence in confrontation with some of the absolutely virtual, merely imaginary modes of acceptance of whatever the mathematics that happened to be applied concludes to!

If this is absent, is it not a flaw that debilitates (1) not only the theoretical requirement of maximum correspondence between the physics and the mathematics, (2) but also implying many irrational consequences at the empirical level?

But if we insist that all that 'empirical' means is just what crystallizes into experimental successes or failures, it would have been enough for physics to continue doing Newton's physics and say that everything directly experimental is being met by it for engineers and informaticians!

I SUGGEST A READING OF THE LEAD-TEXT OF THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION, which I have revised today. I hope you will not accuse me of any ulterior motive in this. Let us follow reason and nothing else.

Gravitational Coalescence Paradox (GCP). Introduction to Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology (GCC).

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology

Raphael Neelamkavil

Thank you for the detailed answer. It allows detailed responses.

“No theory can reflect external reality as such! So, the complaint that "current cosmology does not reflect reality" is too vague.”

Theories which do not reflect reality show conflicts with observations or perceptions.

“But your claim that "reality must be eternal" is too blanketing and vague too!”

No, eternity is the most basic assumption, which is possible.

"The alternative is the eternal big universe spanned by a cosmic field." What proof is there to assert this?”

What do you think must be proven here? Proving that what follows is an alternative? Or that the following alternative is closer to reality as the current big bang model?”

“Yet another stealthily intrusive attempt is this: "The cosmic field is capable of collecting energy from moving gravitational fields."

The proposed cosmic field overcompensates the negative energy density of gravitational fields. In fact, matter suppresses the cosmic field. Gravitation is nothing else as a depression of the cosmic field.

“Are mathematically posited gravitational fields MOVING AROUND, or physically gravitational fields moving? “

Moving mass including massive particles or even photons are accompanied by gravitational fields. The cosmic field reacts on this movement and ist energy density becomes adapted accordingly. This induces an intrinsic movement of the cosmic field, which contains kinetic energy.

“Are these two (cosmic fields and gravitational fields) only different conglomerations of entities, or two absolutely separate conglomerations with eternal origin and separation between them?”

No the gravitational field with ist negative energy density does not exist at all. It exclusively is a depression of the cosmic field. But this also means that the deepest possible depression is given, if the cosmic field has been squeezed out completely.

“And then, after the half of your post, by mixing black holes, neutron stars, etc...”

Here it seems that you begin to completely misunderstand things. I want to describe a cosmic field, which has specific capabilities, and which nobody up to now has on his or her screen.

The essential capabilities of this field are:

The big point is that the eternal universe needs an energy recycling mechanism. The cosmic field implements this recycling process and warps the space to an S³ configuration.

You say: "Eternity is the most basic assumption, which is possible." But I meant the attribution of eternity (of various kinds) to the cosmos or to what you call the cosmic field.

"The alternative is the eternal big universe spanned by a cosmic field."

Arguments in favour of the statement that "the alternative is closer to reality" are necessary here!

"The proposed cosmic field overcompensates the negative energy density of gravitational fields. In fact, matter suppresses the cosmic field. Gravitation is nothing else as a depression of the cosmic field." Do u then think that the cosmic field is existent and that the gravitational field is not existent but are only real depressions in the cosmic field? That it can consist of depressions when expressed in the mathematical manner, but really out there?

But in the existent cosmic reality, if gravitation does not consist of real propagations of gravitons with attractive force (which you call negative energy), then why not say also that EM fields are just mathematical contrary-to-depression fields or whatever, and not existent propagations? If so, even matter can be mere gravitational fluctuations, and not an existent form of matter-energy. If gravitation does not exist (of course, without proofs from anyone), then the EM fields and what you call the cosmic field are totally non-existent. They are all a mere mathematical affair!!!!

"Even photons are accompanied by gravitational fields". Just like matter is accompanied by gravitational fields? Are these fields just mathematical field depressions or really existent propagations? If they are propagations, then all photons need not be accompanied by (with a mass and energy equal to or less than or more than?) gravitational fields! Gravitational propagations must be distinct from EM propagations and the cosmic field! By distinct I mean they need existence not as the cosmic field but as positive propagations within and from matter.

Did u really say the following? "No the gravitational field with ist (ITS) negative energy density does not exist at all. It exclusively is a depression of the cosmic field. But this also means that the deepest possible depression is given, if the cosmic field has been squeezed out completely."

In that case, why not EM fields too are just field depressions or whatever, and not existent? Why to insist that only gravitational propagations are non-existent but just negative fields, merely because we assign to it negative energy in the mathematical formulation? Could it not be that in another mathematical theory gravitational fields have a positive status and all else do not exist?

And further, what reason would you find to show that gravitation is a non-existent field and that the cosmic field is an existent field? What a science! (Meine Güte! Eben unser Freund Einstein könnte es höchst wahrscheinlich nicht akzeptieren....)

My question now is this: Is the negative energy of gravitation really attributed to something existent, or to something non-existent? If you say that gravitation is a non-existent field/s, I do realize here how science can be misled by the mathematical description. It is for me the best example ever from the pen of a scientist.

Are "the essential capabilities of this field" which you numbered above, belonging to existent fields or merely of non-existent fields? Why should only the cosmic field exist or not exist, and the gravitational field should be just a negative-energy non-existent, merely mentioned in mathematical physics for theoretical facility? Very alarming!!!!!

You make it crystal clear to me here the fact that there are more than a fair number of scientists who take THE MATHEMATICAL NECESSITIES AS EXISTENTS, OR AS NON-EXISTENTS, OR EVEN AS QUASI-EXISTENTS!

"The big point is that the eternal universe needs an energy recycling mechanism. The cosmic field implements this recycling process and warps the space to an S³ configuration."

LET ME REFORMULATE THIS: The big mathematical point is that the mathematical theory of a presupposedly eternal universe necessitates mathematically an energy recycling mechanism. The mathematical cosmic field is mathematically made (by some scientists) to implement this recycling process and warp the space to an S³ configuration....!!!!! Hence, for you math is physics!

Please note: I have just expressed my arguments in a strong manner. This does not mean that I disrespect you as a scientist. This is how I have been with my own professors, classmates, and colleagues. Many took time to realize this. But none of them is inimical to me today.

An interesting question because Cosmology uses Einstein’s theory of spacetime to interpret the astronomical observations in relation to the motion of celestial bodies (inclusive clouds of dust, etc.).

There is a discrepancy between the proposed properties of spacetime and the measurements that try to determine the velocity of the influence of gravity. Einstein stated that the influence of gravity is equal to the speed of light but the measurements show that Newton’s idea is more realistic (instantaneous influence). Physics Letters A: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375960198006501

It is not so difficult to understand that if the lower limit of the “speed of gravity” is at least 2 x 1010 c, Einstein’s theory of General relativity must be plain wrong. Because the theory doesn’t rely on a mathematical description of space with the help of a metric (like mathematicians do in 3D topology). That is necessary because in set theory space and energy must share one or more properties otherwise there exist no relation (no mutual existence).

The Standard Cosmological Model (ΛCDM) is an evolutionary model. It is hypothesized that it started with a “big-bang” of all the energy that is now available in the universe. Thus at the start all the energy was compressed within the volume of a “singularity”.

In other words, the “picture” is clear: there was always energy from the start but matter emerged after all the energy had cooled down (the condensation of the Hydrogen plasma). The decrease of the “temperature” of all the energy was caused by the creation of space (the expansion of space from the size of the singularity).

In the past there were objections against the existence of spacetime because gravity is directly related with the existence of matter, actually the existence of rest mass. But in the ΛCDM the relation between energy and spacetime doesn’t rely on the existence of matter. It is the existence of “free energy” that curves spacetime. Not the local curved spacetime around a celestial body, but the spacetime of the whole universe. Because it is expanding like a toy balloon that is blown up from the start of the universe. In other words, energy determines the shape and size of space itself.

So what are the shared properties between energy and space?

“Free energy” in Einstein’s formula E = m c2 are electromagnetic waves. Described by Max Planck’s formula E = h f [f= frequency]. Unfortunately electromagnetic waves originate from local concentrations of energy (matter). For example if a proton annihilates an anti-proton. “Free energy” without the existence of matter in the universe is restricted to amplitudes within the electromagnetic field. In other words, the proposed Hydrogen plasma in the ΛCDM must be (dense) electromagnetic amplitudes.

Unfortunately, the basic quantum fields are not part of the ΛCDM: there is only energy and energy determines the shape and size of space. Most physicists even think that quantum fields are created by matter. But in modern physics (QFT) matter emerges from the properties of the basic quantum fields (see: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616).

To avoid an endless discussion we can question the general concept of the ΛCDM. Because if energy can blow up space Einstein’s formula E = m c2 must “prove” that energy is equal to volume. But if energy is equal to volume Einstein’s formula must be E = m c3. In other words, energy is surface area. In line with the known properties of the “tangible” structure of the universal electric field, a 3D topological field. (The universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field are known as “electromagnetic field”.)

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm, I like a good bit of this explanation. But if it all ends up in action at a distance, I do not think it has much prospect of acceptance.

"Action at a distance?" What are you talking about? The Noble prize Physics 2022 is about the non-locality of our universe that involves all the "tangible" phenomena in the universe, inclusive forces and fields. That is not equal to the EPR paradox.

You want to discuss a proposed discrepancy between the ΛCDM and (geometrical) mathematics. Thus a supposed acceptance is irrelevant because in physics we struggle for about 7 decades how to go on. There is no acceptance to be find although every theorist knows that all the grand theories must be somewhere partly wrong. Or at least far too limited.

With kind regards, Sydney

You said: "but the measurements show that Newton’s idea is more realistic (instantaneous influence)"

Raphael Neelamkavil "...why not EM fields too are just field depressions or whatever..."

Because EM fields have a positive energy density.

The point is the negative energy density of gravitational fields. Gravitational fields get stronger if they provide energy. But a negative energy density cannot exist.

Reduction of a positive energy density is equal to (or at least shows the same impact as) a negative energy density and (its existence) is physically possible.

That means, gravitation is non-existent. It is just a mathematical phenomenon! A mathematical field without anything in existence! In that case, why not EM fields and what you call cosmic field too be mere mathematical fields without existence?

The cause of gravity

Gravity is caused by the product of m and M in 2 different positions.

The cause of gravity must be a concept with information about both the values, m and M.

The only concept with this information is the ether.

Gravity must be a process in 2 steps.

M (Earth) causes a change in the ether. A radial ether wind.

This ether wind is the cause of gravity.

Michelson measured horizontally to avoid gravity. He did not see that the ether wind is gravity. You can feel the ether wind just now in your bottom.

First step: matter tells ether how to move.

Second step: ether tells matter how to move.

Gravity is action at a distance at a time delay.

You are not pulled by Earth, but pushed by the ether, although Earth is the primary source.

John-Erik

Raphael Neelamkavil "That means, gravitation is non-existent. It is just a mathematical phenomenon! A mathematical field without anything in existence! In that case, why not EM fields and what you call cosmic field too be mere mathematical fields without existence?"

No, certain assumed reasons for gravity, like "action at a distance" is nonexistent.

Gravitational fields reduce the energy density of the cosmic field. The energy density reduction is proportional to the field strength squared. The field strength depends on the relative position of objects, which cause the field. Modifying the distance between the objects pumps energy into the field or retracts energy from the field. Gravitational force times distance modification, corresponds to the energy extracted from the cosmic field or provided to the cosmic field.

Due to the quadratic dependency of field strength on the distance from the object, the energy is concentrated around the contributing objects. Therefor gravitation is a local force and not an "action at a distance".

If you wish, you can identify the cosmic field as "ether".

But you did not answer my question: Is gravitation an existent propagation or just a mathematical instrument?

Please remember this:

The big bang theory has many limitations. These are,

(1) the uncertainty regarding the causes / triggers of the big bang,

(2) the need to trace the determination of certain physical constants to the big bang moments and not further backwards,

(3) the necessity to explain the notion of what scientists and philosophers call “time” in terms of the original bang of the universe,

(4) the compulsion to define the notion of “space” with respect to the inner and outer regions of the big bang universe,

(5) the possibility of and the uncertainty about there being other finite or infinite number of universes,

(6) the choice between an infinite number of oscillations between big bangs and big crunches in the big bang universe (in case of there being only our finite-content universe in existence), in every big hang universe (if there are an infinite number of universes),

(7) the question whether energy will be lost from the universe during each phase of the oscillation, and in that case how an infinite number of oscillations can be the whole process of the finite-content universe,

(8) the difficulty involved in mathematizing these cases, etc.

Raphael Neelamkavil

You can add point (9):

(9) Big Bang does not exist, since the effect is not caused by red shift from a moving object. Instead, cosmological red shift is a second order red shift due the radial ether wind around the very large object. An illusion.

And point (10):

(10) Pioneer anomaly is also explained by an illusion due to a change in two-way light speed due to the radial ether wind from the Sun.

Regards

I find it difficult to accept a background ether of this kind. Such an ether will then need another ether. Why not that anything travelling in space will naturally have some redshift and some foreshortening, even without the work of a ubiquitous ether to bring about this effect? If ether is existent, it too should consist of wavicles. If it is dense, then the objects in the universe will not move well enough in it. If it is not dense, then the redshift and foreshortening on moving wavicles will be variant according to the density of ether at any given region.

All these seem too simplistic and antiquated.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Sorry, but I do not agree at all to what you are stating.

Raphael Neelamkavil "I find it difficult to accept a background ether of this kind."

Isn't a gravitational field something like a background ether?

The gravitational field of earth at sea level has an energy density of -57.371.001.524 J/m³. (E=-g²/(8πG))

If the gravitational field is the ether, then it must be an existent ether field, not merely a mathematical one!

Fatio's ether model (ignored by Newton) is realistic if matter is assumed to absorb ether particles instead if particles colliding with matter. Gravity can be a static effect and light can be a dynamic effect in this ether.

So, do you mean that gravity is a static effect, and not dynamic! Just considering it so, or is it really so?

Yes

Do you consider it so, or is it really a static field without any changes?

John-Erik Persson, what exactly did you mean by a Yes? Did you really read the question? If you are unclear as to what to answer, please express that. Instead, you merely said: Yes. Yes about what? Kindly read the matter that you have tried to answer.

And remember what you have already been saying in the previous interventions about gravitation. I humbly think that some more consistency is necessary is what you comment.

Any non frictional force, including the gravitational force, is the result of a displacement dependent energy content.

Frictional forces may occur as interactions between media, which are in relative motion. Particle collisions are the cause of frictional forces.

If gravitation is existent (i.e., not composed of absolute vacua), it too is made of wavicles which we may term gravitons. In that case, gravitons too (and also EM quanta) must cause friction of some very minute kind. The only thing is that we have not yet discovered this type of friction.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Ether is a dynamic process with fast and small particles moving in all directions according to Fatio. Ether particles are absorbed by matter - not colliding with it.

Light is moving processes in the ether.

Gravity is stationary conditions in the ether. Emergent - and no aberration.

You find more details in many articles by me.

All these explanations are very strange and lack genuine reasoning in my opinion. I shall write tomorrow evening. I am occupied these 2 days.

Raphael Neelamkavil "All these explanations are very strange and lack genuine reasoning in my opinion."

No, all these explanations base on the fact, that all forces in nature have the same cause, the action of force fields. The energy density of force fields depends on the relative distance of objects, which span the force fields.

This energy depencency is responsible for the force exerted on the objects.

The force field concept includes nano-scale force fields, which are active around atoms and even around and inside of atomic nuclei.

But you say also that the gravitational force field is just negative, and not existent! If so, let us assume that none of these force fields exist!

Raphael Neelamkavil "But you say also that the gravitational force field is just negative, and not existent! If so, let us assume that none of these force fields exist!"

You know that force fields exist. They exert forces on objects, which contribute to the field. The fields are of gravitational, electrical, and magnetic nature. In the nano cosmos additional kinds of fields exist.

The speciality of the gravitational field is, that it becomes stronger if you extract energy from it. The energy density E of a gravitational field is given by E=Ec-g²/(8πG). Ec is is the energy density of a cosmic field. g is the gravitational acceleration and G is the gravitational constant.

The energy density of an electric field is: ε0E²/2, of the magnetic field it is: µ0H²/2.

I never said that the gravitational field is negative. Only the mass dependent term of the energy density of the gravitational field is negative.

6 days ago you said in answer to my comment (in italics):

“Yet another stealthily intrusive attempt is this: "The cosmic field is capable of collecting energy from moving gravitational fields."

The proposed cosmic field overcompensates the negative energy density of gravitational fields. In fact, matter suppresses the cosmic field. Gravitation is nothing else as a depression of the cosmic field.

Raphael Neelamkavil "Gravitation is nothing else as a depression of the cosmic field."

Yes, this is expressed in the law of the energy density E of the gravitational field. E=Ec-g²/(8πG). The mass dependent part of this law is a negative energy density. Ec is is the energy density of a cosmic field. g is the gravitational acceleration and G is the gravitational constant.

It is you who said this 6 days ago: "Gravitation is nothing else as a depression of the cosmic field." Not I.

If gravitation is just a depression in existing cosmic field, then gravitation will have to be a reduction or negative expression of the cosmic field. In that case, you mean that gravitation is not existent as some separate sort of energy. This is what I questioned.

Gravitational waves are mathematically conceived to be weak ripples in measured / measurable spacetime, but these are caused by masses accelerated by gravity!

Do Electromagnetic and Gravitational Quanta (EM Quanta and Gravitons) Gravitate from Within?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_Electromagnetic_and_Gravitational_Quanta_EM_Quanta_and_Gravitons_Gravitate_from_Within

Raphael Neelamkavil "Do Electromagnetic and Gravitational Quanta (EM Quanta and Gravitons) Gravitate from Within?"

In the static case there are no quanta. The electric, magnetic, or gravitational force is given by the dependency of the field energy on the distance between the objects, which span the field.

If an object is accelerated, a dynamic field restores the static field, sourced by the object, with the new velocity. This means that the overlay of the static field, moving with the old velocity, and the dynamic field, leaves after the dynamic field has passed, another static field, moving with the new velocity.

Applying a particle model to describe this radiative process is a more or less useful option.

Please consider that the statements above apply to all kinds of fields.

Do electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles exist? Before using them in physics, it must be determined whether they exist, for them to exert causally real physical effects. Existents cannot be vacua, and hence, they must exist, and hence they are

(1) in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts), because if not extended, EM quanta would be non-existent, and

(2) in Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on a finite number of others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within), because anything that has no change is not in existence.

An existent without own parts and own exertion of impacts will be imaginable as existent. Anything that is not in Extension-Change is non-existent – a physical-ontological fact at the foundations of physics, which most physicists (and other scientists) forget while performing their statistical and other related miracles!

This much for an introduction. Now, what are the implications of such existence in the case of EM wavicles and gravitons?

ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA

If electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles are EXISTENT, then they possess also EXTENSION and CHANGE. They are not absolutely geometric particles, instead, they are elongated at various dimensions.

Let us assume the following as a general principle in physics: Anything physical issues gravitons, which are the basic attractive forces within physical existents.

If an existent energy wavicle is thus a matter wavicle with extension, it must also issue gravitons! In that case, the only stuff in the cosmos that cannot themselves issue further gravitons from within are gravitons themselves. What can this work to in physics and cosmology? I believe that we need a revolution from this viewpoint. This is a proposal that waits being tested by future physics and astrophysics.

Gravitons too are extended and changing wavicles. But they are themselves the wavicles possessing also their parts that attract each other, and are long-range in nature. If they issue sub-gravitons, they will naturally be kept attracted within the issuing sources, because the parts from which they are supposed to be issued are themselves attractive by nature and other matter and energy particles attract each other basically by means of issuing gravitons.

But naturally, gravitons too must be existent, and hence possess parts. What would be the sort of parts that gravitons can possess? Repulsons or Gravitons? Sub-repulsons or sub-gravitons? I think that they cannot themselves be repulsons and sub-repulsons, because repulsons and sub-repulsons without coherence will not stick together as parts of gravitons. Gravitons cannot issue gravitons themselves, since this is self-creation. But they can possess sub-gravitons as parts, but these need not be of the same power as their totality that each graviton is.

In any case, one thing should be accepted: BOTH ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA MUST ISSUE THEIR OWN WAVICLES OF ATTRACTION. IN THE CASE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTA, THE ISSE IS THAT OF GRAVITONS (and whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to). IN THE CASE OF GRAVITONS, THE PARTS WILL HAVE TO BE SUB-GRAVITONS (plus whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to).

The Big Bang theory is not an absolute truth. It is jut one of many solutions of the Einstein field equations, taken under the conditions according to which there in the Universe is no gravitation, the space does not rotate, but only expand. It was created as an attempt to explain the observed scattering of galaxies (cosmological redshift). Meanwhile, the Universe is impossible without gravitational fields; they are the main creators of material islands in it and joint it as a whole. The usual viewpoint says that the cosmological redshift is caused by the space deformation due to the expansion of the Universe. But this is only a hypothesis by Edwin Hubble (cosmological redshift discovered). There is another way to explain the cosmological redshift. This is solving the isotropic geodesic equations. They describe light ray motion. Their solution in a non-deforming (static) space containing gravitational fields point out the cosmological redshift in a de Sitter space due to the joint gravitational field of the Universe. The exact solution of the isotropic geodesic equations in a de Sitter space gives the observable non-linear redshift, where gravitation is a repulsive force created by the physical vacuum that fills the space. In addition, in this case, the farther a galaxy, the faster it travels. The event horizon in a de Sitter space matches the observable event horizon (known thank to astronomers). Ths, we get an appropriate explanation of gravitation as the main creative force in the finite Universe, where the space does not deform (expand or compress).

By the way, the de Sitter model was the initially accepted model of the Universe created on the basis of the first draft Einstein spherical static model, but filled with physical vacuum.

Thanks for the fine summarized description!

r

Let me show another aspect. In any given world or part of the world there must be a highest velocity. I think this will be determined by the matter-energy density achieved at the broadest (all-inclusive) condensation phase available in that part of the cosmos. Let's call it a world. In this world, it is possible to measure all motion in terms of the highest c of that world. In a broader world that includes this world, or in another world, we should a c-2, elsewere c-3, etc. Thus we have a spectrum of STRs and GTRs. Then the problem of measurement will be more complex.

Larissa Borissova "The exact solution of the isotropic geodesic equations in a de Sitter space gives the observable non-linear redshift, where gravitation is a repulsive force created by the physical vacuum that fills the space."

A closed space with a finite volume cannot be isotropic.

Look at a beam of light following a geodesic path. This path cannot be straight, because then the beam would leave the volume. If the path is not straight, it somehow deviates from the straight direction. This deviation is not isotropic. Being isotropic would request that the light path equally would split in all possible directions. But in fact, the light path leaves the straight direction in a single specific direction determined by the space curvature.

Wolfgang Konle "A closed space with a finite volume cannot be isotropic."

You just do not know the terminology specific to space-time geometry. That is, you supposedly camew from another professional field.

"Non-isotropic" means that, given a four-dimensional space-time interval along a four-dimensional trajectory, the square of the three-dimensional (spatial) interval is not equal to the time interval. And vice versa, "isotropic" means that the square of the three-dimensional interval is equal to the square of the time interval.

For example, non-isotropic trajectories are the trajectories of mass-bearing particles, and isotropic trajectories are the trajectories pf the propagation of light (massless light-like particles, e.g., photons). "Isotropic" and "non-isotropic" trajectories etc are the basics of the terminology of General Relativity.

Larissa Borissova "You just do not know the terminology specific to space-time geometry"

The issue is not spacetime geometry, it simply is (space-) geometry. A straight line always leads to infinity. Therefor a finite space cannot have straight geodesic lines. This is an irrefutable fact. Another irrefutable fact is that curved lines cannot be isotropic.

No terminology can suspend those irrefutable facts.

But indeed, we can find a lot of publications about a de Sitter universe, where arguments appear, which try to just suspend those irrefutable facts. However, all those arguments are eyewash. Simple and obvious geometrical facts cannot be discussed away.

We should ask about the motivation behind those persistent trials to hide the unavoidable anisotropy of finite closed spaces.

Wolfgang Konle Take my apology, but I am a professional theoretical physicists having 55 years of experience and published monographs on General Relativity. I am not willed to be enrolled in a non-professional/non-skilled discussion. So, do not disturb me with similar questions in the future.

Can propagating energy wavicles really be massless, or relatively massless?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_propagating_energy_wavicles_really_be_massless_or_relatively_massless

Source-Independent Velocity of "Pure" Energy vs. Causality vs. Superluminal Velocities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source-Independent_Velocity_of_Pure_Energy_vs_Causality_vs_Superluminal_Velocities

Gravitational Coalescence Paradox (GCP). Introduction to Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology (GCC).

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology_GCC

Larissa Borissova Also take my apology. I am a theoretical physicist as well with 45 years of experience. The problem is that unlimited arrogance in physics keeps false paradigms alife. The misconception that a 3-sphere must be isotropic, is only one example of such an unjustified arrogance.

A well known misconception is that mass hosts potential energy. In fact, the energy is contained in the energy density of force fields.

Another misconception is the plane wave derivation of radiation exerted by an accelerated field source. In fact, fields are co-moving with their source. If the source is accelerated, a dynamic field component occurs. After the dynamic component has passed with the speed of light, it leaves a new co-moving field with the new velocity. The error in the plane wave approach is neglecting the aperiodic part of the wave equation. The root cause of this error is the fact that the energy density of statically co-moving force fields has not been considered.

I fear that those examples do not touch at all your arrogance and your understanding of a three-sphere and of field energy and potential energy.

But I cannot exclude, that it is not at all arrogance. It could be the simple fact that those new viewpoints are well known, but not compatible with the current research funding strategy.

Infinite-Eternal Multiverse?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Infinite-Eternal_Multiverse

Raphael Neelamkavil "Infinite-Eternal Multiverse?"

Infinite and Multiverse is a contradiction. This only would be possible if the multiverse would overlap.

"Infinite and Multiverse is a contradiction."....!!!! What a scientific quality statement!!!!!

Did I ever say that these universes would not overlap? In fact, if you read the text well, you will see that they do have some causal contacts due at least to the fringe-loss of energy from the one universe, which loss naturally should be a gain to many other similar universes.

Raphael Neelamkavil "Did I ever say that these universes would not overlap? In fact, if you read the text well, you will see that they do have some causal contacts due at least to the fringe-loss of energy from the one universe, which loss naturally should be a gain to many other similar universes."

Sorry, but this statement is even a more severe contradiction as infinite multiverse. If alleged multiverse share fringe-loss, then they are coupled entities of a single universe.

The term multiverse implies an absolute disjoint and independent existence of the objects described with that term.

If you say that there are two trees in your garden, should you insist that they should not have any photonal connection from the periphery at all? If you define that the term 'multiverse' implies disjoint worlds, should they be?

Looks like you want just to argue without any substance in your statements. You remind me one of my doctoral guides whom I had to reject. His only interest was to have a discussion, get some ideas, develop them into an article or more. Just to do that, he used to ask silly questions, and I had to reply.

Now I am sure you will accuse me of being the same as what you are!

Raphael Neelamkavil "If you say that there are two trees in your garden, should you insist that they should not have any photonal connection from the periphery at all?"

You really want to compare trees and multiverse?

"If you define that the term 'multiverse' implies disjoint worlds, should they be?"

This is not my private definition.

"His only interest was to have a discussion, get some ideas, develop them into an article or more. Just to do that, he used to ask silly questions, and I had to reply."

Speculations about my motivation are inappropriate. What is your motivation to tell silly things in that forum?

"Now I am sure you will accuse me of being the same as what you are!"

I do not want to accuse you about anything. If you see a factual discussion becoming personal, you surely are not like me.

Very good. Now let us come to the point: The multiverse as consisting of totally disjoint universes, i.e., without any physical contact between them, is your definition. Who else will give such a definition and base their arguments on it?

Please do not feel personal about it. I do not think that you are so simple as to make such a definition and continue arguing! This is why I was reminded of that prof.

Raphael Neelamkavil "The multiverse as consisting of totally disjoint universes, i.e., without any physical contact between them, is your definition"

It is not my definition. It is the definition.

You are not citing any author or authority. I say, my definition of multiverse is of mutually physically, at least minimally related universes.

"You are not citing any author or authority. I say, my definition of multiverse is of mutually physically, at least minimally related universes."

What author or authority are you citing as a reference for your definition of multiverse?

I used the word based on the normal concept of the cosmos, where there are always causal connections. The only matter is that causal connections are POSSIBLE only if the distance between two worlds is finite. But philosophers like David Lewis, and most quantum multiverse theorists think that their multiverse need not have inter-universe connections at all. In David Lewis it is because he let himself get used by counterfactual logic and possible worlds ontology. In QM cosmology, the multiverse need not always be causal, and therefore its part-universes need not have causal connections. But these are not of really existent universes within a strictly existent infinite-content multiverse / cosmos.

Take, e.g., Lewis' and Everitt's books and read. But these are not based on any concept of causation. Therefore, as u know, I have defined Universal Causality in a very foundational manner.

If you think that no causal connection is possible between existent worlds at at finite distances within an infinite-content multiverse, then please tell me how. Please do not say that the s3 geometry is such, then the problem is with your s3 geometry.

I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall put up the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:

FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

I am surprised when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist as waves or particles propagated from material objects. They put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not existent fields. I am sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists.

A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize one important point in this effort.

Raphael Neelamkavil "I used the word based on the normal concept of the cosmos, where there are always causal connections. The only matter is that causal connections are POSSIBLE only if the distance between two worlds is finite."

Again sorry, but here you mix "world" and "universe". A multiverse is something which contains different universes and not different worlds.

It is correct that you can have causal connections between different worlds. But this is not possible between different universes.

With such a fatal misconception you can completely forget your current contribution to this discussion.

Let me tell you: for me, an existent world is the same as an existent universe. We in English use these two words interchangeably.

Ich denke, Sie haben es auch genauso auch in der deutschan Sprache! Die Welt und das Universum sind das Gleiche, außer daß die Etymologien beider Wörter unterscheiden sich voneinander.

If you want to differentiate the two words by etymology, you can do that. But in this case, it is not enough to say that they are not the same. Tell us all how they denote two different things!

And then please explain also this statement. "It is correct that you can have causal connections between different worlds. But this is not possible between different universes." Are causal connections between 2 different worlds, or between 2 different things causal by a transfer of impact, or just by a miraculous 'influence' of each other without exchance of existent energy?

Now, instead of answering whether this is by a miraculous mathematical 'influence', will you go on giving us some more school level Newtonian physics?

Please read also this and tell me whether these gravitational stuff are existent beyond the material bodies or are just some mathematical influence between two existent bodies!

https://scitechdaily.com/louder-than-expected-gravitational-waves-from-merging-supermassive-black-holes-heard-for-first-time/

Raphael Neelamkavil "Let me tell you: for me, an existent world is the same as an existent universe. We in English use these two words interchangeably."

Yes, in the german language it is also possible to use these two words synonymical. But it depends on the context.

However, in the context "multiverse" these two words are not synonyms. Neither in English nor in German.

If you claim your synonymous usage happened by accident, you are cheating. You then only try to hide your fault.

With all these arguments, u try to escape telling a Yes or No as to the existence of EM and Gravitation as propagation wavicles / particles. U are just beating around the bush, accusing me of not defining 'world', 'universe', 'multiverse', etc! Very interesting....

I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:

FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.

This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.

Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.

A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.

There exists the tradition of lapping up whatever physicists may say based on their own manner of using mathematics. Here the reader or the audience may not have the ability to makes judgements based on the minimum physical ontology expected of physicists. I believe that this should stop forever. Moreover, physicists are not to behave like magicians, and their readers and audience should not practice religious faithfulness to them. Nor should physicists expect it from them.

Even in the 21st century, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity with its various versions and especially its merely mathematical interpretations have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields. The mathematics did not need existence, and hence gravitation did not exist! But the same persons did not create a theory whereby the mathematics does not need the existence of the material world and hence the material world does not exist!!

Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities

Raphael Neelamkavil "With all these arguments, u try to escape telling a Yes or No as to the existence of EM and Gravitation as propagation wavicles / particles. U are just beating around the bush, accusing me of not defining 'world', 'universe', 'multiverse', etc! Very interesting...."

What the hell are "propagation wavicles / particles"? You are talking in your private laboratory jargon whithout taking into accout that other people are not at all familiar with it.

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

39 minutes ago

Raphael Neelamkavil "Are physicists like you unable to say whether energy is existent energy or just miraculous mathematical "influence"? Maybe, all that I write are questionable. But would u please give a clear Yes or No reply to the question? Or, do u mean to say that it will be a questionable stuff if you say Yes or No?"

Yes, of course energy exists. What a question?

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

3 minutes ago

And so far u avoided this question! What does it mean?

If energy exists as propagation, it can only be propagated as particles or waves or wavicles? Whatever it will be, let us take that to be true. And then, what will be a field? Is it just the matter, or a field consisting of propagations from matter? And these propagations must exist, as you have finally admitted. If so, we need a different cosmology where the propagations that take at least the speed of light cannot be brought back by any gravitational propagation that is issued later at the same speed! Thus, each local universe should lose some energy.

The rest is to be seen in the lead-text above.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology_GCC

Raphael Neelamkavil "Thus, each local universe should lose some energy."

Except it has the structure of a 3-sphere. With this structure it is ensured that nothing can be lost.

Can we bring it down to the case of a galaxy? Say, Andromeda galaxy loses some energy. This is why I am able to observe it. But I want it not to lose energy. So, I use the S3 geometry to do the physics of Andromeda!

Raphael Neelamkavil "Can we bring it down to the case of a galaxy? Say, Andromeda galaxy loses some energy. This is why I am able to observe it. But I want it not to lose energy. So, I use the S3 geometry to do the physics of Andromeda!"

If you find a way to warp the space around Andromeda to a S³ structure, then you indeed would be able to prevent Andromeda from losing matter or energy.

What you need is a compressed cosmic field. The compression rate is the volume of the universe divided by the volume of Andromeda. You only need to compress all the field energy density contained in the whole universe to the Andromeda volume.

In case Andromeda does not lose energy by reason of ur choosing S3, u cannot observe Andromeda at all -- neither by the EM emissions nor by the graviton emissions from it......!

Raphael Neelamkavil "In case Andromeda does not lose energy by reason of ur choosing S3, u cannot observe Andromeda at all -- neither by the EM emissions nor by the graviton emissions from it......!"

Yes, that is correct.

But we are able to observe Andromeda. That is, every cosmic body has emissions and propagations beyond themselves. U have already said that these will go on to "infinity"!! In that case, in a similar manner, if there are many worlds / universes in an infinite-content multiverse, each universe can be taken as a cosmic body of millions and millions of minor cosmic bodies (just like Andromeda is a body of millions of minor bodies); and each will lose some energy (propagations) to "infinite" distances (as u said).

Raphael Neelamkavil "each universe can be taken as a cosmic body of millions and millions of minor cosmic bodies (just like Andromeda is a body of millions of minor bodies); and each will lose some energy (propagations) to "infinite" distances (as u said)."

Yes objects in a universe may lose energy and exchange matter and energy with other objects. This is relevant why?

Now, if each universe can give away energy, it is not only of EM type but also of gravitational type.

Now u please read my discussion text, which discusses the consequences: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology_GCC

How to Ground Science and Philosophy Together Axiomatically?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_Ground_Science_and_Philosophy_Together_Axiomatically

Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason

This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.

The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.

Please see my research document on functional Grand Unified Theory either attached or on my page. Mathematical tools are an essentially function of Cosmology and the applications of mathematics to physics. This application is most largely and obviously affected by failing to account for the interplay between quantum phenomenon and relativity related phenomenon, and also by no clear-cut ability or route to perform these calculations. By manipulating tensors, and subsequently tying them to mathematical formulas which represent the relation between mathematics and physical processes, quantities and occurrences within quantum physics systems, and then subsequently appropriately setting values for relativity related phenomenon in the form of tensors, operators, and precisely calculated values, one may gain a more precise and enlightening view of Cosmological processes. Failing to account for the interplay between general relativity and quantum phenomenon in any sort of reliable way is a large source of issues in the application of mathematics-to-physics related to Cosmology. Another issue, I believe, is perception. Most scientists are content with either being willfully ignorant of the necessary need to be able to account for quantum phenomenon and relativity related phenomenon at the same time to accurately assess cosmology or they stubbornly stick their feet in the sand and claim they can arrive at fully accurate revelations without an ability to do so. Both are erroneous. Although we can come to A LOT of conclusions about those things without knowing the full quantum/relativity shebang and all it's details, we have no idea what sort of information we could be missing out on, or what false assumptions we could be arriving at. "You vant know what you cant know" The solution to the problem of mathematics-to-physics in Cosmology is most certainly accounting for what I've spoken of here in a reliable way that aligns with known mathematics and physics, but also in developing more advanced equations and discoveries which ties physical processes and quantities to quantum and relativity related phenomenon in a proven and undeniable way. Things like this have been proven by my research. I have found certain forms of complex equations accurately represents laws of physical concepts that shed light on the relation of mathematics to physical things. I am in no way claiming my theory is the only way to do this, I'm just using it as a familiar starting point to speak on this. There are lots of ways to do this without a theory such as mine, but it results in having to perform multiple complex calculations for mathematics, physics, and relativity, parsing, then integrating them separately which is far more time consuming.

The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics

Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text

Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation

Raphael Neelamkavil "One clear example for the partial incompatibility between physics and mathematics is where the so-called black hole singularity is being mathematized by use of asymptotic approach."

No, this is only a clear example for a misconception in theoretical physics. It is not an incompatibility between math an physics, that math is used to express erroneous concepts.

If you think that math and physics are perfect, and hence the errors are because some have been erroneously using math to do physics, you can hold so. Thanks.

Raphael Neelamkavil With "If you think that math and physics are perfect"

you intentionally switch the sense of my statement:

It is not the fault of math, if math is used to describe erroneous physical concepts.

If it is not the fault of math, and if math is absolutely perfect to represent physical events, then perhaps there are no other faults in math! Very good, and continue with this belief!!

And if you want, you may also say that math has some faultlines that make it not absolutely suited to represent physical events, and I shall agree with you.

Raphael Neelamkavil "If it is not the fault of math, and if math is absolutely perfect to represent physical events, then perhaps there are no other faults in math! Very good, and continue with this belief!!"

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand some things. Math is a language. You can use a language to express things. But no language can guarantee that what you are saying is correct. This is fundamental and has nothing to do with a belief.

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist

Sorry, but I feel myself cover filled by too much irrelevant information which, to make things worse, is omnipresent in many threads.

Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist

The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles

If anyone wants to read about a fantastic concept of the existence of consciousness and non-existence of the cosmos, see the comments till today here, by L Kurt Engelhart.......!!! Here you can learn the meaning of solipsism......

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_philosophize_How_to_philosophize_in_the_sciences

Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realized manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.

Watch this video (streamed today, 23 July 2023) from after the 9th minute: A suggestion that the constant velocity of light, Planck’s constant, and Gravitational constant may be found to have covariance when the whole cosmos is considered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPCoqJqSbGY

Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too