Discover the world's scientific knowledge

The importance of green architecture is one of the most effective solutions to global environmental problems, it achieves the most efficient environmental solutions for buildings, as well as it emphasizes the efficient use of energy and seeks to preserve the natural environment and human health.

Hence, the question for discussion here is: How can we activate the strategies of green architecture in our contemporary buildings?

Please, share your suggestions, answers, opinions, comments and reply in this discussion. Regards..

I'm looking for a good tool to extract audio features like Mel-frequency, energy, etc. from a sound file. As my final aim is to extract the emotion of the speaker in the audio, it would be most preferable if I could have a tool that already does basic emotion extraction. I have come across some tools like:

OpenEAR - http://geniiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/26-TUM-Tools-openEAR.pdf

and

YAAFE - http://yaafe.sourceforge.net/

Which could be useful for this task, but I have found that their user-base is not too much and so the tools themselves do not seem to be too user-friendly. Also, since I have still not started working with them, I wanted to know whether there are any better tools available that do the same task, in a better or easier way.

Poverty, disease, and hunger remain among the most persistent and devastating challenges facing humanity. Despite significant advancements in science, technology, and medicine, these issues continue to affect billions worldwide, hindering progress and well-being for millions. What if science could be harnessed not just to mitigate these issues but to eradicate them entirely?

Recent breakthroughs in various fields—such as biotechnology, renewable energy, artificial intelligence, and social sciences—offer unprecedented opportunities to tackle the root causes of poverty, hunger, and disease in innovative ways. Can we leverage these advancements to design systems of resource distribution, healthcare, and education that are sustainable and equitable for all? Can biotechnology revolutionize food production and health solutions, while AI and data analytics create efficient, scalable models for poverty reduction?

What a crazy time eh? In the last 4 weeks I have noticed that the work we develop has gone from relative obscurity to intense interest to just another of the mob of people now streaming performance online.

It's like a career has flashed before my eyes.

Not to mind though, art takes time and contemplation and I have certainly had plenty of that over the last 7 years. And as people start to get over the initial burst of enthusiasm about getting performance online they are starting to ask similar questions to my own at the beginning of this journey. 

Recently a friend asked... "are we responding to a need we have sufficiently allowed ourselves to feel and reflect on, or simply manifesting in a different space our deeply ingrained instinct to always be productive?"

Productivity hasn't seemed to require or use much contemplation so far and culturally this is interesting. As nations tentatively discuss returning to regular social distancing how might the frantic productive energy of the moment move on? or will it be forgotten in the scramble to return to 'normal' (sic)?

The current technological revolution known as Industry 4.0 is motivated by the development of the following factors:

- Big Data database technologies,

- cloud computing,

- machine learning,

- Internet of Things,

- artificial intelligence.

On the basis of the development of the new technological solutions mentioned in recent years, the processes of innovatively organized analyzes of large collections of information collected in Big Data database systems dynamically develop.

What other technological improvements, innovative organizational, technical and IT solutions will be developed in the future based on the development of the above-mentioned factors?

What kinds of innovations will be able to be created in the coming years, in the future based on the integration of the above-mentioned main determinants of the development of the current technological revolution known as Industry 4.0?

What kind of new categories of added value may be created in the future if the above-mentioned technological solutions are more involved in the creation of biotechnological, ecological, product and other innovations.

Will new technologies be created in this way, with the help of which it will be possible to generate solutions to the problems of excessive exploitation of Earth resources in the process of civilization development?

Perhaps new innovative technologies for renewable energy sources and the creation of biodegradable substitutes for many non-degradable materials, e.g. plastics, besides the development of biotechnology and energy innovations, etc. will allow major global problems to be solved.

The development of human civilization in the next few decades should give answers to the above questions.

In view of the above, I am asking you with the following question: Has the technological revolution known as Industry 4.0 already achieved its aopgeum of development or is it just the beginning of this revolution?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

We are pleased to announce a Call for Papers for the upcoming issue of the Journal of Sustainable Development Issues. The journal aims to provide a platform for the exchange of innovative research and ideas that contribute to the understanding and advancement of sustainability across various disciplines.

The Journal of Sustainable Development Issues is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated to fostering research on sustainability-related topics. We invite original research articles, reviews, case studies, and commentaries that address a wide range of sustainability challenges and solutions. Our interdisciplinary approach welcomes submissions from fields including but not limited to environmental science, economics, social sciences, engineering, policy studies, and more.

We encourage submissions that focus on, but are not limited to, the following areas:

· Climate Change

· Environmental Economics and Policy

· Ecology And Sustainable Development

· Global Environmental Issues

· Alternative And Sustainable Energy

· Environmental Technologies

· Sustainable Land Development

· Social Sciences and Humanities

· Urban Planning and Development

· Evaluating Social Impact

· Agricultural Systems and Its Sustainability

· Green Construction and Sustainable Improvement

· The Role of Education and Public Awareness in Sustainable Development

· Energy Security

· Energy Economics

· Green Finance

Please visit our journal's website at https://journalsdi.com/index.php/jsdi/about/submissions for detailed submission guidelines and instructions for authors. All submissions will undergo a rigorous peer-review process to ensure high-quality contributions are included in the journal. The deadline for submissions is November 25, 2023.

All Article Processing Charges (APCs) are waived until the end of 2027. For each accepted paper in JEA, the author(s) will receive a remuneration of 250 US dollars.

We believe your research would greatly enrich the discourse on sustainability, and we invite you to submit your work to the Journal of Sustainable Development Issues. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact us at editor@journalsdi.com.

Thank you for considering this opportunity. We look forward to receiving your valuable contributions.

Journal Home: https://journalsdi.com/index.php/jsdi/index

Submissions: https://journalsdi.com/index.php/jsdi/about/submissions

Author Guidelines: https://journalsdi.com/index.php/jsdi/authors-guidelines

Prof. Dr. Shahriyar Mukhtarov

Editor-in-Chief

Journal of Sustainable Development Issues

I have often wondered if funded research grants enhance or hinder research. With the five-year grant that I have received from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, I have been able to hire research assistants, undertake research with technological support, participate in conferences, and be otherwise productive. However, I have also consecrated enormous energy to the administrative side of the equation, to training and supporting the research assistants, writing updates, reports and evaluations to maintain the grant, and also in developing the grant proposal. Of course, having empirical data is most helpful to publishing the work but I have also been engaged in several other initiatives that were not funded, and I have produced a reasonable amount of publications, collaborations, and other outcomes, such as reports, projects and related work, through these non-funded ventures. A colleague once mentioned to me that he would have never gotten tenure today because he has never received a research grant, and yet he is a well-known international scholar, highly esteemed in his area of expertise with some 50 published books. Thus, I feel the pressure to get grants, which can enhance one's career, and feed into the neoliberal notion of the contemporary university, because of the boxes on evaluation forms but wonder if one might be as productive, creative, conscientious and meaningful without the grant debacle circling overhead. Is there a third way whereby one's contribution might be equally valued and meaningful without the monetary strings being attached?

There have arisen various schools of theories, mainly from within the physics community, theorizing elaborately concerning the ontological foundations of physics. Not till the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century have these notions been clear enough. Two major and common ways of approaching the foundations have been the following:

(1) Physical experiments and theories based on the notions of space, time, matter-energy, and causality. (2) Physical experiments and theories based on the four laws of conservation, namely, those of matter, energy, momentum, and charge. There may be other variations of the foundations, e.g., some include mass in the list. I believe that all such variations are based mostly on the two sets above.

The first set does not seem to be based on anything else from the viewpoints available in the long tradition of classification and the epistemic categories of space and time. The question of deriving one from the others or a few from the others within the list has not occurred. This is the foremost disadvantage of these categories.

But the second list integrates within each category the measuremental aspect of physical (scientific) activity. Interestingly, hence, the second set used to be reduced to symmetries (Hermann Weyl and others). But note that symmetries are measuremental and hence epistemic in nature. A symmetry is not a physical-ontological affair but instead the result of some epistemic operations upon already existent natural processes.

But here the existence of processes is taken for granted, and not included in the categories. That is, the nature of physical processes is not sufficiently taken notice of. This does not mean that the nature of physical processes is left aside from physics. Instead, it is not included in the categories.

Measurements are based on the epistemic concepts of space and time. A symmetry is never the result of merely one epistemic operation. A few measurements together constitute and result in any one sort of symmetry. Hence, the compositional nature of concepts assigned the categorial character in the four conservational categories renders conservational categories into less essential and less grounded for physics.

Moreover, in the above systems, causality is considered (1) either as an addition to the categories behind physical processes and the study of physical processes, (2) or as a notion being brought up in terms of the measuremental concepts of space and time, because until today a universally acceptable manner of defining causality in terms of any other primitive notions has not existed.

Hence, causality as an additional category not based on any other categories and symmetries based merely on composed measurements and not on any other fundamental categories cannot be the foundation for the study of the physical nature of existent processes. The latter needs physical-ontological Categories and these Categories should give rise to the basic notions of physics without reference to ad hoc positing of various basic notions as the foundations of physics.

Moreover, measurement systems like MKS, CGS, and SI are ipso facto mere epistemic systems. They are conventions of measurements, on which the nature of physical processes is based; and conventions of measurements are not based on the most general nature of existence of physical processes. This necessitates finding what underlies both measuremental systems and the resultant symmetries.

In the case of physics and the natural sciences as the general case, the epistemically oriented operations are for the most part measuremental. In the case of many other sciences – say, (1) some applied sciences like medicine, engineering, architecture, etc., (2) some of the human sciences, and (3) especially the fine arts, music, literature, etc. – the status of measurements is different. Exact measurements increasingly take a back seat in these three general types of sciences, although measurements exist in all of them in a more or less evident fashion.

But in the fine arts, music, literature, etc. we have sensation, experiential quality, feelings, etc. taking prominence over measurements. These procedures too are epistemically oriented procedures in such sciences, which scientists (and of course, all of us) often look down upon as sciences that obtain values calculated as less than those that the humanities obtain. Despite this fact, they too are sciences in some sense, since measurement is ubiquitously present in them at least as a minor procedure in comparison with the physical sciences and mathematics. I would hold even that the applied sciences, although active more often with procedural measurements, indulge also a lot of sensation, experiential quality, feelings, etc. in the manner of epistemic qualities.

Some important details to be noticed in the above-mentioned two major traditional school systems of physical categories are the following:

(1) Firstly, space and time are not existents or ontological attributes of existents. As is clear from above, they are the measurementally epistemic and cognitive aspects of physical existents.

(2) Secondly, matter-energy can be taken as existents provided one does not tend to take the abstract Aristotelian-Thomistic meaning of matter (as the abstract raw material which, when exemplified, is always a material object, although such a raw material is never to be found anywhere) and energy (as an abstract action-at-a-distance with no material counterpart) in order to explain material objects.

(3) Thirdly, it is a false procedure in physics, cosmology and derived physical sciences to accept the measuremental notion of energy and material objects as just the number respectively of the energy emissions and material chunks measured based on measurement conventions (e.g., quanta). Instead, the notion of energy as existent propagation from existent matter, measurable in various conventional ways, is much more tenable.

(4) On the other hand, fourthly, the laws of conservation are not simple attributes of any existent. A detailed meaning-analysis of physicists’ claims may show that many of them have taken the conservation laws as the most fundamental attributes / qualities of theories. But they are principles formulated sententially out of a few notions and verbs, and hence rendered as principles composed of many other simple attributes which then are concatenated using verbal connective notions. I call as universals the simple attributes constituting the sentential principles of symmetries.

Even the verbal notions may be set in the qualitative language and rendered universal attributes. This is because both names and verbs belong to the processes that existents are and define existents as ongoing processes. Universals are the basic contents of all basic principles, definitions, etc. But what we need as most basic sources of physics are physical-ontological Categories that work as the fundamental notions of all universals.

Merely any one or some universals cannot suffice at the foundations of physics. They need to be the direct implications of the most fundamental of all notions, namely, To Be / To Exist. But why should physics follow this manner of thinking? None insists upon this on the physical praxis of a physicist. But the suggestion is that the physicist too deals with existing physical processes, and also the philosopher of physics deals with existent stuff, and not non-existent stuff. Why then should physicists follow those Categories that physical-ontologically justify their work? For the above reasons, I follow the way of searching for the universals of all existents in their equally nominal and verbal aspect, namely, the To Be of Reality-in-total.

Physics cannot be done in a well-justified manner without possibly best-grounded universals that go beyond the above-mentioned two groups of physical-ontologically insufficiently grounded, arbitrarily introduced, and haphazardly variegated categories which are not derivable from the most fundamental ones. The most basic grounding should always be from the To Be of Reality-in-total, and such Categories are absolutely lacking in physics even today – a fact that I have become more and more aware of while discussing matters physical and cosmological on ResearchGate as I attempted to suggest what I found to be the possibly most basic Categories of all science and philosophy.

Some may suggest that the surest possible physical (not physical-ontological) grounding that has been provided by some in the past in terms of defining time, space, mass, and energy measurementally are sufficient for physics, and perhaps it is good to add causality, but we are not sure whether everything is fully causal – and that none needs to intrude into the foundations of physics from other disciplines.

I argue that all such grounds are insufficient due to their classificational and measuremental nature, as mentioned above. Secondly, they are insufficient for physics because they are exclusively and merely from within the ambit of physics. This does not ground physics. Moreover, I shall show that Universal Causality is ubiquitous if a physical existent should exist at all, i.e., from the concept of existence is Universal Causality to be derived in a pre-scientifically ontological manner, and that the instruments of such derivation are themselves the primary Categories of physics.

The two sets of physical categories mentioned above, due to their classificational and measuremental nature, are not derivable from the To Be of all existents. To put the argument in gist, the definitions of all the said merely physical categories use simple universals as ingredients; these ingredients are not final enough; there are two most final ontological universals; and hence, the highest ontological universals should also be at the foundations of physics along with existent matter-energy, so that the classifications and measurements of existent matter-energy within physics be conceptually possible; and further, these two Categories are the very essence of Universal Causality too.

Section "Methodological aspects of forecasting"

Section co-chairs:

Forecasting as one of the types of intellectual activity in a broad sense is the ability to discover factors and predict the main trends that underlie fundamental science and influence its development. There is a need to identify areas for expanding knowledge and assess the priority of the main areas of science. One of the main directions can be considered the development of a methodology for philosophical forecasting, namely: finding means and resources for the development of science, predicting the consequences of this development, and identifying its long-term forecasts. Of great importance for the success of results in any field is the determination of a person’s intellectual abilities to make adequate decisions in a problem situation. For this N.A. Ryabchikova at Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov has developed a computer psychological testing program “Forecast 2.5”, which allows one to determine a person’s cognitive abilities. Such properties of the brain as consciousness and thinking make it possible to predict human behavior in any, and especially important, problem situation that requires quick and adequate decision-making. Understanding the causes and predicting tragic events requires complex efforts based on the synthesis of various natural sciences, as well as the humanities, which have information about cataclysms of the past. At the same time, the practical orientation of forecasting, such as, for example, determining the early stage of diseases, early career guidance, monitoring the behavior of animals before natural or man-made disasters requires comprehension and special attention of scientists and the state. But forecasting also requires a conceptual solution to some fundamental problems of mathematics and cosmology, the theory of time, the theory of harmony, chronology, the problem of direct extraction of energy from the vacuum, as well as the connection between energy, information, consciousness, the problem of intelligent AI, etc. It is necessary to give competent answers to the following series questions.

Remote participation in the conference is allowed.

The organizers ensure the publication of a collection of conference materials.

Registration and acceptance of abstracts for the conference is carried out until August 1, 2024 at the address:https://congrsysalgbai.ru/ru/#main

After registration, please provide similar information to the scientific secretary of the section V.A. Poltarakova. e-mail: v.poltarakova@gmail.com

c-global is Einstein’s most miraculous brainchild, found in response to a discussion held with his senior friend Michele Besso in the spring of 1905. It possesses some formidable properties because it remains valid around everyone, no matter how fast she or he may be moving.

Almost three years later, in December of 1907, the problem of the influence of gravity on c would be addressed by Einstein. His newly proposed “equivalence principle” (between gravity and ordinary constant acceleration) is the most astounding armchair prediction ever made. It entailed the famously familiar gravitational redshift: Light that ascends from the bottom to the tip of Apollo going in full blast in outer space, inevitably shows this redshift. Although the experimental confirmation in Princeton would take 52 years.

However, Einstein in 1907 in addition looked at light that is propagating horizontally downstairs. Here he predicted – of course equally correctly -- that the horizontal light ray looks creeping in parallelism to its reduced frequency, when watched from above. The famous “gravitational redshift” thus was accompanied by the equally startling prediction of a “gravitational slowdown of the speed of light” -- such that the latter speed would retain its universal value of 2 1/2 years before only locally (“c-local”).

Three and a half years of dead silence on the topic of gravitation followed suit in Einstein's work. This obviously because the “axiom” of c-global, made at the outset, entailed the implied “theorem” of c-nonglobal – a logical inconsistency.  

No one took offense. It rather seemed to make sense in the physics community from then on up until to date that c is "creeping" downstairs when observed from above. The disturbing fact that quantum mechanics is violated thereby (because the lower in mass-energy photons downstairs yield lower-mass atoms down there via creation-annihilation, so the latter must be enlarged by the redshift factor) was of course inaccessible in 1907. The latter quantum constraint would then go unnoticed for a century. 

As we saw, the visibly creeping light downstairs was obtained in 1907 as a formal implication of the assumption of c-global – a logical nonsequitur. Can consistency be regained? Einstein later excused himself that he had “seared his mind” by thinking too hard about the situation.

You spot see the resolution? It reads: _{local slantedness downstairs relative to above.} The light ray which is progressing locally horizontally downstairs is at the same time slanted relative to the tip at every point, owing to the bottom's constant falling back relative to the tip. This is the reason why the ray looks slowed!

The implications of this "repair" are far-reaching: The global c gets retrieved just as is logically required. Hence the distance traveled – size – is not actually unchanged downstairs as was always believed so far, but rather is proportionally increased. This jibes with quantum mechanics which demands, via the less energetic photons down there and creation-annihilation, that all atoms downstairs have proportionally less mass and hence are proportionally enlarged in accordance with the Bohr radius formula.

But this fact is unknown? Yes, but this by historical accident. What is the consequence? Indeed, the newly retrieved c-global radically re-scales general relativity. The first scholarly student to write down the repaired full field equations will predictably get nobelized. But what else is it that will follow?

A whole bonanza. For example: "no cosmic expansion any more." And Fritz Zwicky’s dynamical-friction explanation of the cosmological redshift law is suddenly rehabilitated. The 7 Nobel medals in support of the Big Bang require new laudatios. However, as important as all of this looks, it is nothing compared to a collateral blissful fact:

An experiment deemed safe by the scientific community is suddenly maximally dangerous to earth. So as if the whole scientific community has had playdough on its eyes for almost a century. So the ten thousand physicists at CERN cannot be blamed for sharing in this blindness?

This first logic error ever made by the whole physics community is not without its consequences: It entails a so-called survival error by causing “Armageddon risked.”

The whole physics community has currently lost its prestige before the public eye across the planet because it actively ignored the survival-relevant newly discovered  implication of Einstein's equivalence principle: c-global.

On the other hand, the humanities have retrieve their superior status once held in the past: “Think, little babe, don’t you calculate!” For calculating without thinking is deadly, it turns out. And as a bonus for the improved understanding of Einstein’s first superhuman insight, c-global, his second, (nonlocality) likewise proves much more powerful than previously thought. 

c-global is hard to top, though, because of its role as a planet-saver.

September 21, 2017