my travels in soviet russia. audio story on my podcast.

well, to those who are not interested in my science articles, i must make good of the promise to post some new stories. the first story of the three part introduction was edited by my friend already over a month ago, thus i can post it now with no issues. further editing, of the part two and three of the series of introduction, must be done by myself — the vacation of my friend from his full time work has ended and he has no more free time now. maybe in the future he will lend me some assistance again and the process of producing podcasts will go faster.

you will find the first part of the intro story on my audio channel..

below is also the direct link to the story, but probably you will need to install the app then (at least on an android device, on pc perhaps not). the link above works in the browser also on android, without the need to install the app.

my travels in soviet russia, intro 1 of 3, borders..

read the previously posted article to understand why there was a significant secrecy during recording of the intro to my new stories..
i will do my best to find the time to edit the other recordings in the near future. right now i work on some science issues, at the expense of eating well and with reduced sleeping time.

about randomness.

for over twenty years i’ve been studying randomness, including by computer simulations, writing my own programs for that purpose and studying the resulting graphs. i’ve been trying to visualize randomness, to find some structure, and i found some regularities, or probabilities in other words. the purpose of my long time effort has been to employ the findings in gambling, on roulette and stock market.. but that’s another story, described in one of my books..

i propose that randomness is truly random in linear form only, while with several dimensions involved it must be not so random after all — it must have some predictable regularities in order to bring form into the universe. if it isn’t the case then there must be an observer included from the very beginning of the universe, a mind, a creator. as i trust mathematics to be the language of gods, then only mathematics can explain the structure in universe rising from random fluctuations in aether (quantum foam).

this is a cue that should give me an answer to the nature of gravity, on which i’m still working on. in the past i have also published an explanation of gravity rising from the casimir effect, by the waves of cosmic scale pushing on nearby objects in space, which are close enough to cancel wavelengths of that scale between them. i cannot be expert in everything, thus that proposal was just out of the blue because i cannot be sure in the real effect — it should presuppose the existence of waves of such cosmic length, which are not measurable by current technology. thus i keep thinking on other explanations.

my starting point for the reasoning:
as the behavior of basic building blocks of the universe, beginning with quantum fluctuations, are random in nature, then all the phenomena in the entire universe must be possible to explain by the logic coming from the randomness, statistics and probability, which in cumulative effect, in what we see around us, emerges from the most likely scenario based on the mathematics, on randomness.

i’m still working on trying to explain gravity, but meanwhile there will be more articles showing some contradictions in the established science.


before posting the next article in science.

i must give an excuse to readers that the promised publishing of the new, already recorded stories about my past travels, is postponed for now, due to lack of time for finalizing the editing. in my list of priorities is trying to solve some cases in science way before telling the story of my life.

prior to posting a science article, my own take on some issues and contradictions, i spend lots of time revisiting particular truths in the established science, to be sure i got it all right. only then i post the article when i have made sure that my logic is correct.

for now, here’s another paradox to think about..

if the speed of light is constant regardless of point of observation, then the red-shift of distant stars moving away from us wouldn’t be possible. constant speed of light and the phenomenon of red-shift cannot be true both at the same time, one of them must be wrong. as red-shift is well observed phenomenon, then the speed of light being constant, proposed by einstein, isn’t true.