Dear Juan,

I agree with you that Time reversibility is not fundamental. We use very simple microscopic time-reversible equations but in reality in every process take place dissipation of energy and interaction of numerous particles. If we include dissipation in equation of motion the processes will have known final and the arrow of time appears. In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter which is the subject of my essay black holes are impossible. Also I am sure that at the level of particles is Strong gravitation. Instead of general relativity may be used Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation (LITG). LITG is similar to electromagnetism which already has quantum form. I suppose the dark matter is due to nuons which are similar to white dwarfs by their properties but have such mass as nucleons. More about it in the article: Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Sergey Fedosin

    Mass is defined by

    [math]m = \frac{\sqrt{E^2 - (pc)^2}}{c^2}[/math]

    It can be shown that this is an invariant. Indeed, the mass of one electron, me, is the same here and in the Moon.

    • [deleted]

    Juan, I enjoyed reading your paper. Your insights into the assumptions of what is fundamental science run parallel to my own.

    In respect to time, I show that forward, linear time is actually a *pulsed*, forward, linear time. I show that spacetime, itself, has quantum structure and is precisely quantified as a quantum rotating magnetic field (Aether unit), which has two-spin structure. Subatomic particles reside only in 1/4 of this structure. There are only four observable fundamental and stable subatomic particles in our forward time perception of the Universe, which are the proton, electron, antiproton, and positron. There should be four similar particles in the backward time direction.

    Part of the spin structure of quantum space is that it spins in both forward and backward time. For reasons likely related to the geometry of the quantum Aether unit, subatomic particles in our perceived Universe see only the forward time spin direction. Thus in each quantum moment the subatomic particles move half spin in forward time direction, and then are dormant during the Aether's backward time direction.

    It is because actual Aether oscillates in both forward and backward time that we perceive in our minds that we are always in the present, even though the matter of our body and world appears to be in a state of linear, forward time. It is as though matter acts like a time diode on the Aether. Linear time only exists when there is matter around to measure it by.

    The Aether Physics Model easily addresses your other insights, as well. Dark matter is quantifiable within a Newtonian system of physics. It can be derived from physical constants and it exists as strings of mass.

    Black holes are not super massive objects, but rather a region where the Aether is so dense that it unravels. When the Aether unravels, the matter it contains also unravels. The centers of galaxies are simply the ends of the Universe, which act kind of like a bathtub drain for matter and Aether.

    The precessions of the planets are caused by pinched space, and I show the quantification and the structure for how space is pinched. It occurs with the binding of a proton and electron to form a neutron. As I mentioned, the proton and electron exist in different quadrants of an Aether unit. Two Aether units can thus fold over on to each other thus pinching the fabric of spacetime while forming the composite neutron particle. Notice that neutron stars are the densest forms of matter. With the space pinched near the surface of the star, the space around the star is actually thinner than it otherwise would be. Newton gravitational rules still apply, but a correction for the reduced density of space must be accounted for. This correction factor will be directly related to the neutron mass of the star, and not the proton and electron mass.

    Also, the neutron cores of stars cause such an extreme pinching of the Aether that large portions of the star's core implodes along with the collapsed Aether, which leads to supernovas. It is the implosion event that creates gravitational waves, and which I claim are recognizable by certain solar x-ray patterns. In other words, I believe I have been witnessing gravitational waves from across the Universe on a near daily basis just by watching solar x-ray behavior.

    We are coming to the same conclusions in our different works. I could comment more, but the response is getting long. You have good insights and I wish you success in the contest.

      Dear Sergey,

      You are absolutely right. Time reversibility is not fundamental. The recent XXI Solvay Conference on Physics has been devoted to fundamental irreversibilities in Nature. The proceedings have been published in the volume 122 of Advances In Chemical Physics. The section four, titled "Extension Of Quantum Theory And Field Theory" contains irreversible extensions of the simple time-reversible equations. For instance, an extension of quantum field theory to study unstable particles in quantum states outside of Hilbert space was presented. My own work on the arrow of time must be considered a generalization of the dynamics of correlations developed by the Brussels-Austin School (pages 261-276 of the proceedings).

      I am happy to find in this contest so many people that agrees that black holes are only a mathematical idealization. The idea behind strong gravitation is particularly interesting to me. I have read something about the analogies between strong gravity and QCD, but my knowledge of this topic is very superficial. Your remark of that it is related to a Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation has increased my curiosity and I wait to learn more about this subject in brief. Thank you for the link.

      Regards

      Dear David,

      Thank you for the kindly words. It is really fascinating that we run parallel starting from different foundations and following different ways. I do not consider the proton a fundamental particle, because I am using the Wigner classification. I may confess that I use the ordinary matrix model of the spin and that I have not advanced in the search of a more fundamental model. If it exists I could not find it! Therefore, I am glad to read what others have done.

      Regards.

      • [deleted]

      Hi Juan, I specifically voted as a community member and used my code. I took note of your public rating and number of votes before and after I voted. I have no idea why your public rating was changed instead of your community rating. I wonder if this is a bug.

      I'm sure there is a log of site activity that the moderators can check on to see what happened. If you know who to contact, maybe you could contact them and explain the situation. I will vouch for it.

      • [deleted]

      It turns out that I had voted on a different paper, earlier, using my email address. Even though I specifically used my key to vote on this paper, the cookies apparently processed the vote as per my previous email vote. I was able to vote a second time on this same paper, using my key, and this time it registered as a community vote instead of a public vote. So I have now voted twice on this one paper.

      Dear Juan,

      Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation (LITG) may be used only in weak field approximation and for simple version of quantum gravity. Yes, in the LITG Lagrangian used in Strong gravity after substituting the gravitational constant by \Gamma. In common case instead of LITG must be used Covariant theory of gravitation (CTG). The CTG has Lagrangian where contribution of gravitational and electromagnetic fields has similar form including field tensors. Thanks for the references. By the way what does mean V` in the equation (1) of your paper `Modified Newtonian Dynamics and Dark Matter from a Generalized Gravitational Theory` at viXra.org ? Is it the velocity of massive source m` ? I do not found there decision of 4/3 problem. As it is known the 4/3 problem is difference of mass-energy of field in energy and in momentum of field of a body in motion.

      Sergey Fedosin

        Hola Juan

        This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

        This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

        Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

        A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

        An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

        Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

        Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

        Thank you and good luck.

        Vladimir

        Juan,

        For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.

        Jim

          James,

          thank you for your interest!

          As I wrote with some detail in my message of day 23 in your own forum, you are completely right when asking for the attractive aspect of gravity. Asking such questions provides a fundamental picture about our universe. It was a pleasure to me to read your essay and found this resonance with my ideas.

          Regards

          Juan

          I don't agree entirely with your proposals, but a very well written and argued essay, and one of the few, like mine, remaining on theme. Interestingly both of ours have 8 identified assumptions.

          I do agree most, but I think Dark Matter remains an open question. I do have a preference for the Yukawa or 'screened Coulomb' potential over the Newtonian curve, but argue that as ions have a refractive index of n=1, are 'self focussing' of light (as in lasers) are otherwise invisible, may arise from pair production due to relative motion, are consistent with gravitational mapping and lensing, and are actually found at high densities where we have explored,.. then they may contribute significantly.

          The last point is supported by the excellent Cluster graph and analysis in Richard Kinsley-Nixey's essay (Fig.2.) I'd be very interested in your views on that aspect of my essay, which derives not only CSL and the SR postulates but curved space-time from the quantum mechanism of coupling interaction (Raman scattering).

          Thanks for an interesting read. I confirm I think you deserve a good score despite any differences of view. I hope you think similarly of mine. Being close should not mean adversarial scoring, so very best of luck in the results.

          Peter

            Peter,

            I really enjoyed your beautiful and relevant essay, which deserves evaluation by the judges without any doubt. I already stated my opinion about Dark Matter in my essay, but I will answer your specific question in your forum.

            After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

            Cood luck.

            Sergey Fedosin

            If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

            Sergey Fedosin

            I managed to obtain a copy of an email sent from a member of the FQXi Technical Support (his identity will be disclosed if needed) that confirms that some authors were allowed unlimited voting of others essays. This must explain why some people, including myself, dropped 50-100 positions in about 15 minutes, when all were in the top ranking during one or more weeks.

            The email has date of the day 3 and says "This problem was temporary, and has been corrected." Well, it seems that the problem was not corrected.

            At the same time, I have seen a pair of essays ascending lots of positions (more than 260 positions in one very suspicious case that everyone has noticed) in the same time span.

            Moreover, I have also noticed that my public rating and that of people around me has dropped by someone giving us a "1".

            More info at the contest blog

            Juan

            Nicely written and argued, if needing to be evolved to match consistently with a real set of mechanisms. Congrats. I hope reading mine may allow consideration of the real measurement problem.

            Regards

            Matt