Hamza Ali Asif: Gud sir, Its a.scientist tradation as einstein,hubble,maxwell,darwin,boltzmann,feynman,.....now Gabriel Vacariu.....very nice

Soumyaranjan.Panda: Sir, I think u r a great scientist

Enrique A CarmonaHey Gabriel, I finally had the time to read some of your work and I am now able to understand it. Not an easy digestion So, all this "controversial" problems have only been the product of a wrong framework?It is interesting though that a different framework completely changes the perception of the world

I like the idea that of it does not exist for each other. For example I read the table example. Pardon me if I am wrong, that the microparticles does not exist for the macroparticles and that a table is not composed of its micro particles but rather it is corresponding to it. Is it correct what I am saying?

- Yes it is very correct. There are the micro-EW and the macro-EW and other EDWs

I also agree with the thought that to exist is to interact. I recently read the book, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics and he talks about this same thing. A world of interactions, nothing less, nothing more.

Carlo Rovelli? I will read the book if I get it but do you know about this:

Many “specialists” from different fields have published UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas long after I posted FREE my first FIVE books (in English) on various webpages! Taking a look at this work, I hope it will be clear why, in 2017, I started to advertise my works: at https://philpapers.org/rec/VACJT or https://www.academia.edu/33523181/_June_2017_Gabriel_Vacariu_The_UNBELIEVABLE_similarities_between_ideas_of_people_and_my_ideas_2002-2008.docx Gabriel Vacariu (June 2017) The UNBELIEVABLE similarities between my ideas (2002-2008, philosophy (of mind), cognitive neuroscience, and physics (quantum mechanics), cosmology) and the ideas of some people (much later, 2011-2016)

Content Some preliminary comments (All my five books (2008-2014) published in English have been posted on Internet (various sites) FREE for everybody immediately after being published!) CONTENT Some preliminary comments. Introduction of my approach epistemologically different worlds”: paragraphs of my works 2002-2008

I. PHYSICS, COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY Chapter 1 Did Sean Carroll’s ideas (2016) (California Institute of Technology, USA) (within the wrong framework, the “universe”) plagiarize my ideas (2002-2010) (within the EDWs framework) on quantum mechanics, the relationship between Einstein relativity and quantum mechanics, life, the mind-brain problem, etc.? Chapter 2 The unbelievable similarities between Frank Wilczek’s ideas (2016) (Nobel Prize in Physics) and my ideas (2002-2008, etc.) (Philosophy of Mind and Quantum Mechanics) Chapter 3 The unbelievable similarities between Hugo F. Alrøe and Egon Noe’s (Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Denmark) ideas (2017, USA) and my ideas (2002-2008) (Bohr's complementarity extended to ontology) Chapter 4 Similarities between Adam Frank’s ideas

(2016 or 2017?, University of Rochester in New York , USA) (“Minding matter - The closer you look, the more the materialist position in physics appears to rest on shaky metaphysical ground”) and my ideas (2005, 2008)

……………….

It seeme that Rovelli will be on this list. His book is from 2014!

I have one question. I don't know where this might lead to but I want to see how you would answer it by your framework. We know that a cold temperature can transition to a hotter temperature. But never the other way around. I will quote what the text says. "In every case in which heat exchange does not occur, or when the heat exchanged is negligible, we see that the future behaves exactly like the past. While there is no friction, for instance, a pendulum can swing forever. But if there is friction then the pendulum heats its supports slightly, loses energy and slows down. Friction produces heat. And immediately we are able to distinguish the future (towards which the pendulum slows) from the past." What is your opinion on this?

In my future book, there is a chapter on Thermodynamics (entropy, etc.).

time does not exist. “Spacetime” - impossible to have an ontological status. Before the "universe" (which does not exist, but "epistemologically different worlds" exist), it was an EW that did not exist for our "universe". I wrote this in 2007 in one o...

Tymoor Jfsn A concept..Like · Reply · 50 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu wait! Motion? motion has no ontological statusLike · Reply · 47 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp Motion exists. That's why stuff exists. Ontologically, it's all relative to you, or being. But it you fall over right now, you'll hit the floor. It'll hurt. How we measure that time-wise, to me, is arbitrary.Like · Reply · 44 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu yes, but ontological "motion" in itself cannot have a status. it would be strong ontological contraction.Like · Reply · 43 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp That is what Einstein said. It's just all relative motion - my motion different from yours, or any particles from another - that's where special relativity became general relativity. There is no special reference frame. All is in motion, so as you say, motion becomes meaningless in a sense. But relative motion? That's real.Like · Reply · 38 minsRemove

Marjeff Dizon Johnson By ontological you mean metaphysically? Why would it contract?Like · Reply · 37 mins

Jeff Klumpp What Einstein said, is that the Universe moves itself.Like · Reply · 37 mins

Gabriel Vacariu the problem is this one: a feature of an object cannot have ontological status it self. the object has but not the features. the features are that object. but ontological status has the object not any feature separately.Like · Reply · 36 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu Universe/world does not exist. see Empirically, quantum mechanics has great results. However, there have been various theoretical “interpretations” to QM. (See Rosenblum and Kuttner Quantum enigma - Physics encounters consciousness, 2006 or Tegmark, Max and Wheeler, John Archibald (2001), “100 years of quantum mysteries”, Scientific American, 284/2, pp. 68–75) The titles indicate exactly the “mysteries” of QM. In reality the framework of QM has been wrong all this century! My discovery of the EDWs (2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 (the first application of the perspective to the QM), 2008 (first book) and later until 2016 - Springer’s book) solved the main “QM mysteries” and other great mysteries in philosophy (of mind), cognitive neuroscience, and even biology (the definition of “life” in relationship to “organism”). 

However, according to my approach, the EDWs perspective, QM is a pseudo-theory! (See this idea in my Springer’s book 2016) The explanation of nonlocality (and many other quantum problematic notions) in my book published at Springer (Germany) in 2016. Also, see FIVE books FREE (2008-2014) at my webpage: in my works, I showed that quantum mechanics is wrong. Also, I indicated the ontology of special and general relativity. With my EDWs perspective, Einstein finally won his fight against quantum physicists! Also, in 2015, I showed that space and time cannot even exist.Until me, everybody has been working within the wrong framework the "world/universe". For the first time in the history of human thinking, I showed that the world (unicorn world, as I called) is a wrong notion. I discovered the

“epistemologically different worlds” (EDWs). In this way, I showed that - the quantum problems are in fact pseudo-problems (everybody placed the wave and the particle in the same “world”/universe which does not exist - the mind-brain problem is a pseudo-problem (everybody placed the mind and the brain within the same world but the mind is an EW, the brain belongs to the macro-EW where are the planets). - Many other philosophical or scientific became pseud-problems. - Don’t forget: „I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actual philosophy.” (Max Born) These words were mainly about QM! He was right, and the problem is that physicists have not believed him (except those who have plagiarized my ideas!)

For me: (a) the “multiverse” (Physics) means that all universes are in the same macro-EW, that is, they have still worked within the unicorn world. (b) Spinoza worked within the unicorn world with one substance with “different attributes”. (c) Everybody has worked within the “universe”/unicorn world. Until me, NOBODY denied the “world”/unicorn world! 

the brain does not exist for the mind, the mind does not exist for the brain but both exist in EDWs: see this idea Gabriel Vacariu at SPRINGER (Germany): (2016) ILLUSIONS OF HUMAN THINKING: ON CONCEPTS OF MIND, REALITY, AND UNIVERSE IN PSYCHOLOGY, NEUROSCIENCE, AND PHYSICS, Author: Vacariu, Gabriel. Written by Springer staff: • “The Book delivers a new axiomatic-hyperontological framework for a non-contradictory conceptual understanding of ‘Welt’ (‘Universe’)• Shows how to solve fundamental and philosophical problems of Science (‘Pseudoproblems’)• Gives deep insight into philosophical discussions of Philosophy of Mind, Neurosciences, Psychology, Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics.The book illustrates that the traditional philosophical concept of the ‘Universe’, the ‘World’ has led to anomalies and paradoxes in the realm of knowledge. The author replaces this notion by the EDWs perspective, i.e. a new axiomatic hyperontological framework of ‘Epistemologically Different Worlds’ (EDWs). Thus it becomes possible to find a more appropriate approach to different branches of science, such as cognitive neuroscience, physics, biology and the philosophy of mind. The consequences are a better understanding of the mind-body problem, quantum physics non-locality or entanglement, the measurement problem, Einstein’s theory of relativity and the binding problem in cognitive neuroscience.” (here: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783658104436)

In this book: the new approach regarding quantum problems, the mind-brain problem, the micro-macro problem - reality, “world”, “universe” does not even exist. Something else exist, but for what really exist, the “Epistemologically Different Worlds”. This book is a summary of the main ideas of my books (in English) published in 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 and posted at my webpage FREE (and other pages). • At my webpage http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/cv_gabriel_vacariu/• (Philosophy, University of Bucharest), see my article 2005 Synthese (USA) (several papers 2002-2003 on the same topic)+ five books FREE each posted on Internet

when it was published) on Cognitive (Neuro)science, Physics (quantum theory and Einstein’s relativity), Philosophy (of mind), etc. • On Amazon, two books: Dark matter and dark energy, space and time, and other pseudo-notions in cosmology (2016) + Is cognitive neuroscience a pseudoscience (2015)• In book 2014 or 2016, see the ONTOLOGY of Einstein’s special and general theory of relativity within the EDWs perspective!+“Spacetime” - impossible to have an ontological status. Before the "universe" (which does not exist, but "epistemologically different worlds" exist), it was an EW that did not exist for our "universe". I wrote this in 2007 in one of my papers. See FIVE books (2008-2014) FREE (and many papers) at my webpage. Dark matter and dark energy, space and time do not exist. However, there has to be something: “Nothing” in our world corresponds to “something” that belongs to an “epistemologically different world”. Last year, I explained the “relationship” of dark matter connecting two galaxies. On this topic see on Amazon: “(2016) DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY, SPACE AND TIME, AND OTHER PSEUDO-NOTIONS IN COSMOLOGY” by Gabriel Vacariu (Author), Mihai Vacariu (Author) (also my 5 books FREE (in English) at my webpage http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/cv_gabriel_vacariu/)Illusions of Human Thinking - On Concepts of Mind, Reality, | Gabriel Vacariu | SpringerThe book illustrates that the traditional philosophical concept of the "Universe”, the "World” has led to anomalies and paradoxes in the realm of...SPRINGER.COMLike · Reply · Remove Preview · 36 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu anyway, we talked about this in the past.Like · Reply · 36 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp Sorry I'm being repetitive.Like · Reply · 35 mins

Gabriel Vacariu there is no problemLike · Reply · 35 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu anyway, in my later book, I showed space and time (spacetime) do not exist.Like · Reply · 34 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp But QM and Relativity are separate concepts.Like · Reply · 34 mins

Gabriel Vacariu however, Einstein's relativity is still okLike · Reply · 34 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu ok course. bLike · Reply · 34 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu in my approach, these theories refer to EDWs. however, QM is wrong since it is a mixture of two EDWs the wave-EW and the particle-EW.Like · Reply · 33 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp QM is micro. Relativity is macro. for what that means in the whole scal scheme of things.Like · Reply · 33 mins

Gabriel Vacariu since these theories refer to EDWs, it is meaningless to try to relate themLike · Reply · 33 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu you wrote about whole-part relationship. in my book at Springer I investigated this relationLike · Reply · 32 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp Uh, oh, you lost me on EDW's. I need to do some reading.Like · Reply · 32 mins

Gabriel Vacariu in some cases whole-part are both in the same EW, in same cases, there are EDWsLike

 · Reply · 32 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp point me somewhere.Like · Reply · 31 mins

Gabriel Vacariu at y webpage there are FIVE books FREE in English. 2008. 2010 last chapter is about PhysicsLike · Reply · 31 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/cv_gabriel_vacariu/

Professor Dr. Gabriel Vacariu (except the first paragraph, this webpage is in English)Conf. univ. dr. Gabriel Vacariu este doctor al University…FILOSOFIE.UNIBUC.ROLike · Reply · Remove Preview · 31 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu Einstein in book 2014Like · Reply · 30 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu a synthesis of all main ideas of these FIVE books in my Sprigner book 2016Like · Reply · 30 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp I'll read it, you gave me that before I think, & I didn't. My bad.Like · Reply · 30 mins

Gabriel Vacariu also, about dark matter/energy, space and time, inflation, etc. as pseudo-notions in Cosmology in my book 2016Like

 · Reply · 29 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu in book 2010, last sub-chapter I showed superstring theory is a pseudo-theoryLike · Reply · 28 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu  · 26 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp Look, I can see in my head how this all works. But I'm not a mathematician, just a 50 year enthusiast. But I see stuff; maybe 80% wrong, but I'll bet 20+% right. More like Penrose. I'll read your stuff and absorb what I can.Like · Reply · 26 mins

Gabriel Vacariu thanks for your interest and this discussion!Like · Reply · 25 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu it helps me such discussionsLike · Reply · 25 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp Love it.Like · Reply · 25 mins

Jeff Klumpp Me too.Like · Reply · 25 mins

Gabriel Vacariu then PERFECT!Like · Reply · 24 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp In the higher dimension of things (9 or 11 or whatever), what happens to a space when you see it from a higher dimension? Say, one higher?Like

 · Reply · 23 mins

Gabriel Vacariu as I wrote, in my book 2010, last subchpater, string theory is a pseudo-theory.Like · Reply · 23 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu anyway, space does not exist... so how can we talk about 3, 4, 10, 11, 26 dimensions??Like · Reply · 22 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp So we live in just 3 (+time)?Like · Reply · 22 mins

Gabriel Vacariu why 3?Like · Reply · 22 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu could you show me a space with 2D or one D??Like · Reply · 22 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu space with 2D or 1D does not exist. but neither 3D exist.Like · Reply · 21 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp Well, that's what we commonly measure. The point I'm getting to, and I think math supports, is that a space will collapse into a surface when viewed from 'above' [bad term].Like · Reply · 21 mins

Gabriel Vacariu if space were having ontological status, strong ontological contradictions would beLike · Reply · 21 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp You ever read Roger Penrose?Like · Reply · 20 mins

Gabriel Vacariu "surface"? indicate me a surface with 2D.Like · Reply · 20 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu long time agoLike · Reply · 20 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu a point on a paper has 1D?Like · Reply · 20 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu I don't believeLike · Reply · 19 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp More like 3D to 2D, or 4D to 3D, or 5D to 4D.Like · Reply · 19 mins

Gabriel Vacariu it does not exist (ontologically) a point of 1DLike · Reply · 19 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu neither a surface of 2DLike · Reply · 19 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu nor 3DLike · Reply · 19 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu a point on a paper written my pen has 3DLike · Reply · 18 mins

Edit

Gabriel Vacariu it does not exist (ontologically) a surface of 2D. anything would be 3D but 3D produce strong ontological contradctionsLike · Reply · 17 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu so space does not have any ontological statusLike · Reply · 17 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu it is an illusion in our mindLike · Reply · 17 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp There is no 1D. It equals zero. Because everything must move. So 1D automatically becomes 2D. But the 2D thing moves, too. That becomes 3D; but that moves too, doesn't it? Which means math only becomes what we can envision.Like · Reply · 17 mins

Gabriel Vacariu created by our intelect not by "sense"Like · Reply · 16 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp We have a common goal. Sense, and what we can't sense, but still is.Like · Reply · 16 mins

Gabriel Vacariu math? I believe Einstein: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” (Einstein quoted in J R Newman, The World of Mathematics, New York 1956).Like · Reply · 16 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp Reality has no end. Me.Like · Reply · 15 mins

Gabriel Vacariu it is a possibility.Like · Reply · 14 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu but "infinite" does not exist (cannot have ontological status. I showed this alsoLike · Reply · 14 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu then God cannot even exist Gabriel Vacariu (September 2015) “God even cannot exist!” at: http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/.../God-cannot-even-exist.pdf (For the first time in the history of human thinking, it is proved, in my paper, that “God” cannot even exist!!!) Other works: I solved the mind-brain problem, I showed quantum mechanics is a pseudo-theory, I furnished the ontology of Einstein’ special and general relativity, a new definition of life, etc. See my first FIVE books (in English) FREE at my webpage - a summary of these books: a book at Springer 2106! http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/cv_gabriel_vacariu/Like · Reply · 1 · 13 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp I hate infinities! Just a cheap way of saying "I don't understand". Same as we use the word 'dark' now.Like · Reply · 12 mins

Gabriel Vacariu correct!Like · Reply · 12 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp Infinities are where our understanding and current math break down. That's all.Like · Reply · 12 mins

Gabriel Vacariu two zero together results infiniteLike · Reply · 11 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp I dunno. Hung out with several friends in high school. We were all zeros. Added together, it was still zero.  :)

Like · Reply · 10 mins

Gabriel Vacariu 0x0 = 00Like · Reply · 10 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu just a pictureLike · Reply · 9 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu nothing elseLike · Reply · 9 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp 0 is the only number that doesn't exist and is just a concept in our brainpans.Like · Reply · 9 mins

Gabriel Vacariu correct also.Like · Reply · 8 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu but the numbers have no ontological statusLike · Reply · 8 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu allLike · Reply · 8 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu some fit reality, some do notLike · Reply · 8 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu reality does not "care" about numbers...Like · Reply · 7 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp They slide, have different meanings in different places, depending on how they move.Like · Reply · 7 mins

Gabriel Vacariu yes, but no ontological status: words, words, wordsLike · Reply · 6 minsEdit

Jeff Klumpp but they are relative.Like · Reply · 6 mins

Jeff Klumpp Until we can pin them on a shape, they won't.Like · Reply · 5 mins

Jeff Klumpp 3. What?Like · Reply · 4 mins

Gabriel Vacariu a word in our mindsLike · Reply · 3 minsEdit

Patrick Spear Following alone. Suspose reality is something we create and the universe just works to make it happen. Was Erwin right. Tesla told Einstein he was wasting his time with relitivity. I'll have to agree with infinity. It's a mathmatical symbol... Basically nature's way of telling us, wrong try again. Suspose it's kinda like the matrix. That is what Max Planck said. As for God. We're a cartoon trying to prove the existence of the artist. I'm just a mechanical engineer. I love this feed. You dudes just hammer it out.Like

LikeLoveHahaWowSad

Angry

 · Reply · 2 · 3 mins

Jeff Klumpp Yes. But we're understanding the Universe more and more, like watching "Family Guy". we're learning the characters  :)

Like · Reply · 2 mins

Jeff Klumpp Let's pray it's not this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FRsBa4KRkcLike · Reply · Just now

Write a reply...

Gabriel Vacariu "3" a mental figureLike · Reply · 2 mins · EditedEdit

Write a comment...

James Huse That's a lot to absorb, it will take time to study this [about Springer and Dark matter books]

--- ----- -------------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ----------

Hey, I'm a quantum Physicist. I did my PhD as a rhodes scholar from Oxford and then post doctotrate research at UC Berkeley. You claim whole QM is wrong?

rChat Conversation Start

You're friends on FacebookResearch Assistant at LUMSLives in Lahore, PakistanMAY 15TH, 8:05PM

You are now connected on Messenger.

10:17AM

Hey, I'm a quantum Physicist. I did my PhD as a rhodes scholar from Oxford and then post doctotrate research at UC Berkeley. You claim whole QM is wrong?yes. see my workssee the book published at Springer. but also Five books FREE at my website: http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/cv_gabriel_vacariu/

[I gave some details about the content of some works]

questions? send me by email gvacariu@yahoo.comabout QM: see my first two books 2008, 2010, last chapter. also two articles at my webpage about Physics and QM.if you are interested see my book 2016 about some pseudo-notions like dark matter/energy, space and time

and others in Cosmology.the ontology of Einstein special and general relativity in my book 2014 or Springeragainst superstring theory, my book 2010, last chapter

Gabriel, I am a professor at UCSF now, and I won't be able to read all your books. What aspect of Quantum you think is wrong? Or whole of it is wrong?all. all approaches... just because the framework of all is wrongthe "world"/universe which does not exist.what exist? EDWsepistemologically different worldsin QM: the wave-EW and the particle-EWalso the macro-EW (planets), the mind-EW, etc.mistake of QM: mixture of EDWsthe main rule: one EW does not exist for any EDWso, it is meaningless to try to put together wave and particlethis is the main error

How would that alter Quantum Mechanics even if multiverse exist?Wave and particle nature can be proven easily"multiverse" is totally diferent than my EDWsmultiverse does not affect QMwave and particle belong to EDWs

EDW, let me google Never heard of that. TBHit is my conceptI discovered the exsitence of EDWsfirst in my papers 2002-2003-2005

EVIDENCE?surethe table in front of you and the microparticles (protons and electrons) in front of youtable or planetplanet = gravityso, the gravity and the strong force (for instaince) is a proof for my EDWs

Is you the only one who came up with EDW?your mind and your brain belong to EDWslike for everybodyyour mind is an EW, your brain belongs to the macro-EW where is the table and the bodyetc.

Where did you do your PhD from?these are PROOFin Romania and second in Sydney AustraliaI have been working alone all my lifeor with my twin brotherone year in Oxford at institut of experimental psychology (Soros scholarship)there I worked with famous neuroscientists

Not with Some institute? You have your lab?I amphilospherphilosophyI have an office and internetenoughand a leptop

You're an Oxford allumini too Greatyesone year

Which year?1999-2000

you did PhD in?philosophybothbutthe topics where from cogntiive neuroscience and physics (QM etc.)my first book 2008 is my thesisfree at my webpage

You are a philospher or a physicist?philosopherhowever, I studied 4 years computer science before philosphy

Nice meeting you. I have some workthanks a lot also

We will have conversation later. When I get time. Have a nice day!Its 2 45 am hereheve a class at 9 amok

See you!see you

You're in SF?SF?

San Francisco?science fiction?sorryI am in Romaniain the last 9 years

I see. Anyways, see you later. Bye

for nowI haven't left romania in these yearsbye

--------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------

Abdullah ZakhilwalStudies Computer Systems Engineering at University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar Pakistansalaam friendhow are you?

may I have a reply please?

AbdullahYou missed a call from Abdullah.Friday 2:31pm

Call BackFRI 4:48PMI am at a confetence nowAt phone

okayI need to talk to you10:34AMok.I am in other city now, I access Internet through my phonehowever, tomorrow I return homeit would be easier to talk when I am in Bucharest

fine with me, we will talk tomorrowok

thank younow you can send me some questionswrittenI am in a pub waiting the train

okay, I am writing nowI have read your posts and I have really found them interesting about quantum mechanics and big bang theory

thanks

do you really think quantum mechanics does not exist?I showed QM is wrongthen entiry thoery and alli its approachesthe world/universe does not exist. only the EDWs exist

I agree, but how about photons then?photons existand waves existbut in EDWsand the planets exist but in EDWsthe micro-EW, the macro-EW the waves-EWetc.

so when you say photons exist it means it's not actually gravity but rather electromagnetism?for photons exist only electromagnetism not gravitygravity (spacetime curved) exist only for planetseven if the light follow a cured spacetimecurvedthe photons do not exist for the planets

I am getting the point slowly slowly, so can we say Newton presented his theory in a wrong caseNewton's theory is an approximationEinstein's relativiyt is correct

great!it explains the macro-EW

so then the earth is flat and motionless?both special and general are correctwhat?the earth is flat???did Einstein wrote this???

yes, it's been said70% americansI don't care

if there is no gravity then why we don't tumble off from the earthif it's a spinning ballthe gravity was replaced by curved spacetimein Einstein general relativitythis is the answerEinstein's answer

okayhowever, in my book 2016 I showed space and time spacetime do not exist

okayhave they really been to the moon?spacetime does not have any ontological foundation

okaydoes God exist?noGabriel Vacariu (September 2015) “God even cannot exist!” at: http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/wp-content/uploads/God-cannot-even-exist.pdf (For the first time in the history of human thinking, it is proved, in my paper, that “God” cannot even exist!!!) Other works: I solved the mind-brain problem, I showed quantum mechanics is a pseudo-theory, I furnished the ontology of Einstein’ special and general relativity, a new definition of life, etc. See my first FIVE books (in English) FREE at my webpage - a summary of these books: a book at Springer 2106! http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/cv_gabriel_vacariu/

filosofie.unibuc.rofilosofie.unibuc.ro

are there multi universes?maybe but are completely different than my EDWsall universes are in the same macro-EWI don't care about multiverses

what do you think about black holes?there are like galaxiesthey do not existjust because the infinite does not existontologically

it means there is no end to the universe, it will be expanding forever?infinite human inventionI have no idea

okayIs big bang real?not reallythere were many big bangs at the same timesnot one in an infinitesimal pointso there was no inflationGuth is wrong

many big bangs mean many universesnofrom the same pre-Big Bang-world appeared many big bangsin the micro-EW and wave-EWat the same moments

if you say there was no big bang so how did the universe begin how did everything come in motion?

I said there were many Big bangs at the same momentsnot one

okaygot itwhat was there before many big bangs?an EDW,pre-big bang EWI wrote these ideas in my book 2014 FREE at my webpagelast chapter

okaybut hypothesis and fictional are hard to be acceptedthere are no hypothesisthis is the realityproof? Many “specialists” from different fields have published UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas long after I posted FREE my first FIVE books (in English) on various webpages! Taking a look at this work, I hope it will be clear why, in 2017, I started to advertise my works: at https://philpapers.org/rec/VACJT or

how can a human mind and thought reach that far?good questionI solved the mind-brain problem, I showed cognitive neuroscience is a pseudoscience (2 books), I showed QM is wrong, I showed the ontology of Einstein's both relativity and many other problems I solvedin 3 sciences and philosophyworking from the morning till the next morningeach day15 years

goodthis was the way

but it is the quantum mechanics which talks about photonsand waves

waves also talks about photons?EDWs

waves do not exist for phtonsphotons do not exist for wavesbut both exist in EDWs

okay, photons are massless so what is its relation with gravity force?photons do not exist for gravity, gravity do not exist for photonsburbutphotons folllow curved spacetime by planetsinstead of planets there are an amalgam huge of microparticlesfor photons

Newton 3rd law is failed completely then?I don't care

it is not important for me reaction action

great!however, Newton great mind!one of the greatest

he stole it from othersyes indeed

then how come great!I hear Einstein got his E=mcxc from somebody else

from Muslim scientist he stole itI don't know the details

I have read thathe was a freemason tooanyway the history will bring the truefor me also

yes, you are absolutely rightmy name is written already in the hisotyr of human thinking

glad to knowrecord of people plagiarizing my ideas

okayhow about kuku??kaku

yes, sorry typing mistakehe recently proved God existstring theory? against superstring theory see last chapter book 2010it his faulterrorI don't care

hmmm, okayabout his ideas

referring to Godsince God cannot even exist

does time have direction and dimension?time and space do not existmy book 2016

oh greatdo aliens exist?maybethree theories correct: Darwin, Boltzmann and Einsteinall other "great" theories were wrong

so we are descended from Apes?including QM, CNS etcyes

okaywhy there are still apesI mean if we descended from them we replaced themmaybe there ware ancestors common to apes and humansthis is a theory in biology

okayevolution means a gradual process of something so why are the middle shape apesI don't knowchanging the environmentduring millions of years many things happened

it can't be proven this way there could be middle stage apes from apes to humanmaybe I don't knowthis is a job for biologists not for meit is their problemI came with a new definition of life

even biologists failed to prove itthis is my work in biology

okayonly this

many scientists and biologists made them to believe in Godit is their problme

because the universe could have been chaotic and dirty not this way gorgeousI am pity for themuniverse does not exist anyway

so what does really exist?EDWSEDWs= ED entities and their interactionsjust thisno more or less

it takes a great mind to believe itimagine the mind who discovered this, me

we have the scriptures, holy books, words of God how can they be deniedreligion = drug for peoplepoisonfenceswalsswalls

religion teaches humanityno

the way to livereligion teaches nothingmanipulationnot teachingfor priestspriests = MAFIAfor mein general not all

it does I have observed, experienced this is why I am sayingnot allmajority

yes, there are some priestsvery few

but they are to blame, not the religionthe majority want only money

because religion doesn't allow them to do evil they themselves do itof course

yes, they want moneyI totally agree with youI have to go to railway station for taking the train

if I commit a sin, I rob, I do every wrongdoing it is my personal fault not my religionokay, thanks for your time

Gabriel Vacariu at SPRINGER (Germany): (2016) ILLUSIONS OF HUMAN THINKING: ON CONCEPTS OF MIND, REALITY, AND UNIVERSE IN PSYCHOLOGY, NEUROSCIENCE, AND PHYSICS, Author: Vacariu, Gabriel. Written by Springer staff: • “The Book delivers a new axiomatic-...See MoreIllusions of Human Thinking - On Concepts of Mind, Reality, | Gabriel Vacariu | SpringerThe book illustrates that the traditional philosophical concept of the "Universe”, the "World” has led to anomalies and paradoxes in the realm of...SPRINGER.COMLike · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · July 2 at 11:13pmEdit

Chace Burke replied   ·   5 Replies

Pooja Soni What is truth?Like · Reply · 29 minsRemove

Hide 50 Replies

50 of 91View previous replies

Gabriel Vacariu see above how many people have plagiarized my ideas (some quite famous)Like · Reply · 18 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu go to my webpage and read about them http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/cv_gabriel_vacariu/

FILOSOFIE.UNIBUC.ROLike · Reply · Remove Preview · 18 minsEdit

Pooja Soni But your idea is problematic as it requires 'physical' link between existing objects.Like · Reply · 17 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu physical liink = interactions physicallyLike · Reply · 17 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu just thisLike · Reply · 17 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu human being presence is not necesasryLike · Reply · 17 minsEdit

Pooja Soni So a painting on the wall doesn't exist because it is not in contact with the chair?Like · Reply · 17 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu necessaryLike · Reply · 17 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu a paint is some physical on a wall. it existLike · Reply · 16 minsEdit

Pooja Soni Human presence is necessary for existence?Like · Reply · 16 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu sLike · Reply · 16 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu noLike

 · Reply · 16 minsEdit

Pooja Soni What things 'do not' exist?Like · Reply · 16 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu humans related to observation but not exisetenceLike · Reply · 16 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu the universeLike · Reply · 15 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu for insentaceLike · Reply · 15 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu all QM is wrong completelyLike · Reply · 15 minsEdit

Pooja Soni Do numbers exist?Like · Reply · 15 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu the mind-brain problem is a pseudo-problemLike · Reply · 15 minsEdit

Pooja Soni To a blind person does color exist?Like · Reply · 15 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu in human mind onlyLike · Reply · 15 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu noLike · Reply · 15 minsEdit

Pooja Soni So you have a biocentric view of the world?Like · Reply · 14 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu no.Like · Reply · 14 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu the world does not existLike · Reply · 14 minsEdit

Pooja Soni Kant says only experiencial objects exist. Do you agree?Like · Reply · 14 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu I followed Kant, but I pushed his theory much furtherLike · Reply · 14 minsEdit

Pooja Soni Have you read Marcus Gabriel's work?He also says the world doesn't exist.Like · Reply · 14 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu he is on my list aboveLike · Reply · 13 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu sean carroll alsoLike · Reply · 13 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu and many othersLike · Reply · 13 minsEdit

Pooja Soni How do you define an object?Like · Reply · 13 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu intereactions constitute objects, objects determine interactions. my main princleLike · Reply · 12 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu principle plagiarized by many on that listLike · Reply · 12 minsEdit

Pooja Soni So according to you all things in the physical world exist because they are in physical contact with each other?Like · Reply · 12 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu exactlyLike · Reply · 12 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu but exist in EDWs not in the world (which does not exist)Like · Reply · 11 minsEdit

Pooja Soni What is EDWs?Like · Reply · 11 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu epistemologically different worldsLike · Reply · 11 minsEdit

Pooja Soni Concepts?Like · Reply · 11 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu NO!!!!

Like · Reply · 10 minsEdit

Pooja Soni Objects are concepts?Like · Reply · 10 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu realityLike · Reply · 10 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu NOOOOOLike · Reply · 10 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu entities that really existLike · Reply · 10 minsEdit

Pooja Soni What do you mean by different worlds?Like · Reply · 10 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu I wrote epistemologically different worldsLike · Reply · 9 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu micro-EW and macro-EW and mind-EWLike · Reply · 9 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu and many othersLike · Reply · 9 minsEdit

Pooja Soni Can you give an example for each?Like · Reply · 9 mins

Edit

Pooja Soni Can you give an example for each?Like · Reply · 10 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu I gave above chair-table vs. microparticlesLike · Reply · 9 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu EDWsLike · Reply · 9 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu take a look at my books papersLike · Reply · 9 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu see yo laterLike · Reply · 9 minsEdit

Pooja Soni What is mind-EW?Like · Reply · 9 minsRemove

Gabriel Vacariu your mind is an EWLike · Reply · 8 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu my mind is an EWLike · Reply · 8 minsEdit

Gabriel Vacariu one EW does not exist for any EDW