Dear Sergey,

I read your essay, but sorry to say, I could not follow much.Is it a new theory or a new approach entirely developed by you? Are you suggesting that there can be an infinite number of layers if we consider mass of the body as the only criterion? I have developed a new theory 'The finiteness theory'. However in the essay "Incredible foundations", I have not mentioned the details, but only referred to the approach that I used.

One thing that I got interested is the way you calculated the strong gravity.Are you saying that the strong nuclear force is actually gravity at the level of particles? My opinion is that. However, I calculated the strong force constant in a similar war using the force between two electrons when they just touch. This worked out to be 2.78x10^32. The gravitational constant of hydrogen atom that I got is close to the strong gravitational constant you obtained.

    Dear Viraj,

    From the Carnots ideal engine follows the possible work in the form: [math] dQ = (S_2 -S_1) (T_1 -T_2) =dA[/math] Where dQ is the heat converted to the work dA, S2-S1 is difference of entropy in states 2 and 1, T1 is the temperature of the high temperature reservoir, T2 is the temperature of the low temperature reservoir (background). Here S is extensive (additive) quantity, T is intensive quantity. I think the formula for dQ in the Carnots ideal engine is inapplicable as analogy for deducing of quantity Mvc( 1-u/c) since speed v is measured in the Earth reference frame and speed of the Earth u - in the Sun reference frame, i.e by different observers.

    Sergey Fedosin

    Dear Jose,

    In the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter not only mass, but also size of objects are important as the rate of similar processes and other quantities. If you have papers about Strong gravitational constant please give me the references.

    Sergey Fedosin

    • [deleted]

    • Post #35

    Sergey,

    You wrote: "analogy (is inapplicable) for deducing of quantity Mvc( 1-u/c) since speed v is measured in the Earth reference frame and speed of the Earth u - in the Sun reference frame, i.e by different observers".

    The reference frame interpretation is incorrect. It is in fact a gross misinterpretation of the experimental data (see below) which Lorentz used in discerning the Lorentz transformation. The reference frame interpretation is a fantasy and introduces a fantastic illusion into science to create a makeshift working hypothesis to overcome the problem Lorentz faced as stated below.

    I refer you to Lorentz 1904 paper, in which he iterated the data of Kaufman's experiments on fast moving electrons (on Earth!!), and by trial and error he discerned the EMPIRICAL EQUATION which we now know as the "Lorentz transformation". If you read the opening lines of Lorentz' paper, you will find that the "observer on earth" that is data obtained for the motion of a particle (which was expected to move at velocity v) with respect to the lab frame contains a term involving Earth's motion of velocity u.

    Lorentz wrote in the burning problem he faced in the opening paragraph: "The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena ..... IN VIRTUE OF THE EARTH'S ANNUAL MOTION ...." (p. 11)

    Then in art 2. The experiments (Rayleigh and Brace, Trounton and Noble) of which I have spoken are not the only reason for which a new examination of the PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH THE MOTION OF THE EARTH is desirable.(p.12)

    The problem was just like the background temperature field (of temp T2) in the hierarchy influence the heat (S1T1) generated within it, by usurping a fraction of it, the background "velocity field" of velocity u, was found to influence the energy Mvc by usurping the fraction.

    But Lorentz problem was: It "admits a simple solution, so long as only ....the first power of of the ratio between the velocity of translation (of Earth) u and the velocity of light" is taken into account.

    So he means that if the term is Mv( 1-u/c) the solution to the problem is simple. But it is Mv(1-u/c)/(1 - u2/c2) the solution becomes difficult.

    "Cases in which quantities of the second order, i.e. of the order u2/c2 may be perceptible, present more difficulties".

    This difficulty was overcome in SRT by merely postulating that time t changes to t' = t(1- xu/c2)/(1-u2/c2)1/2. If this contention has any validity, then this equation should have been verified by experiment. Can you tell me at least one experiment which has verified the above equation? If this is not verified, then the two reference frame hypothesis falls.

    Best regards,

    Viraj

      • [deleted]

      • Post #37

      Dear Sergey,

      The question I asked you is that has there been even a single experiment which has confirmed, that when x' = gamma(x -ut) the corresponding time is

      t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)t?

      And your answer: See the Ives-Stilwell experiment . This concerns time dilation equation (1) (below).

      YOU ARE MAKING THE SAME GRAVE ERROR THAT GEORGE ELLIS DID JUST TWO DAYS BACK. YOU ARE CONFUSING BETWEEN THE SO-CALLED TIME DILATION EQUATION (1) AND LORENTZ TIME TRANSFORMATION EQUATION (2)

      t' = t/(1 - v2/c2)1/2 --------------------(1)

      t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)t ----------(2)

      Just like you referring me to Ives-Stilwell Experiment by confusing equation (1) for equation (2), George Ellis also made the same error by referring to another group of experiments. He wrote: "all those collider experiments at places like SLAC and CERN verify it millions of times over each time they do a run".

      My reply was: In those "millions of times" of verifications, what was verified was

      a) that displacement is given by x' = gamma(x -ut) where U IS THE VELOCITY OF ORBIT OF THE EARTH and gamma determined by u. Hence the gamma-factor (for all experiments conducted on earth) is a constant. Gamma = 1.000000005.

      b) And in the experiments to verify the decay time of a muon at CERN it confirmed the 'time dilation equation' t' = t/(1 - v2/c2)1/2. In this v is the velocity of the particle in the gamma-factor. In this equation gamma is a variable. In the CERN experiment gamma v = 0.99c and gamma = 7.088, and when moving in a cosmic ray (as in Feynman example below, v = 0.9c and gamma = 2,294.

      To quote from Feynman: . For example, before we have any idea at all about what makes the meson disintegrate, we can still predict that when it is moving at nine-tenths of the speed of light the apparent time that it lasts is (2.2x10-6)/ sq rt [ 1- (9/10) squared] sec; and that our prediction works ..." (Vol I Ch 15 - 7).

      FOR SRT TO BE CORRECT ON ITS FUNDAMENTAL CONTENTION OF THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS, (see Einstein's statement below) WHEN THE MUON DECAYS AFTER MOVING THROUGH A DISPLACEMENT GIVEN BY x' = gamma(x -ut) THE CORRESPONDING TIME HAS TO BE GIVEN BY (2)

      t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)t. -------(2)

      But this time is given by (1).

      When I framed the question that way:

      George Ellis HONESTLY CONCEDED. "YES I AGREE THAT THAT SPECIFIC EQUATION (2) PER SE HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BUT TIME DILATION (i.e equation 1) HAS, WHICH IS ITS CORE ELEMENT".

      So Sergey, here is the fundamental contention of SRT in Einstein's own words: :.. "The insight which is fundamental for special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions 1)[constancy of the velocity of light] and 2) [principle of relativity] are compatible if relations of a new type ('Lorentz transformation') are postulated for the conversion of co-ordinates and the time."(Autobiography, p. 55).

      I WILL ASK THE SAME QUESTION AGAIN FROM YOU AS WELL. CAN YOU GIVE EVEN ONE EXPERIMENT THAT HAS CONFIRMED THE EQUATION

      t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)t?

      Best regards,

      Viraj

      • [deleted]

      • Post #38

      Dear Sergey,

      1. You have not answered my question about Einstein's equation for the time in a moving frame whether it has been it has been proved even by a single experiment.

      2. Thanks for showing the typo. In SRT's equation t on the right hand side is inside the bracket so the correct equation is t' = gamma(t - xu/c2)

      3. I would appreciate if you would answer that question in regard to this correct equation.

      Best regards,

      Viraj

      • [deleted]

      • Post #39

      Dear Viraj,

      Eq. (1): [math]x`=\frac {x-ut}{\sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math]

      Eq. (2): [math]t`=\frac {t-xu/c^2}{\sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math]

      Eq. (1) and (2) are Lorentz transformations from base inertial reference frame K to moving inertial reference frame K`. It is a correspondence of coordinate x and time t when K` moving in K along of axis OX with the speed u. How we can understand that speed of light c is constant in all inertial systems? This question is well seen in Extended special theory of relativity . It is shown that constancy of speed of light in all inertial systems may be a consequence of constancy of speed of light in isotropic reference frame where the speed is the same in all direction and may be connected with isotropy of fluxes of gravitons. Another reason is procedure of space-time measurement in special relativity which uses two-way propagation of waves. With such procedure averaging of speed of light take place giving the value of c. But real speed in a direction may be not c. If we begin from the electrodynamics and from the Lienard-Wiechert potential then we arrive to Eq. (1) and (2) if we want connect reference frame K and K`. Then with Lorentz transformations Maxwell equations will have the same form in all inertial systems. Also constancy of speed of light is necessary for the same form of electromagnetic wave equation in all inertial systems. So Lorentz transformations are in full agreement with the constancy of equations of electrodynamics for inertial systems. Also I want say that Eq. (1) and (2) is connected with each other by symmetry. If we take t in Eq. (2) and use it in Eq. (1) we find reverse Lorentz transformation for x: [math]x=\frac {x`+ut`}{\sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math] If we take x in Eq. (1) and use it in Eq. (2) we find reverse Lorentz transformation for t: [math]t=\frac {t`+x`u/c^2}{\sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math] In practice it is possible to find only increments of coordinate dx and time dt in experiments so we have for u = constant:

      [math]dt`=\frac {dt-dx \cdot u/c^2}{\sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math] Part of this equation is checked in experiments (see the Ives-Stilwell experiment): [math]dt`=\frac {dt}{\sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math]

      I do not know about proving another part: [math]dt`=-\frac {dx \cdot u }{ c^2 \sqrt {1-u^2/c^2}} [/math] it seems here problem with the smallness of the effect.

      Sergey Fedosin

      • [deleted]

      • Post #40

      Dear Dr. Fedosin,

      You raises various interesting points in your Essay, hence I am going to give you an high score, although I disagree with you on a fundamental issue.

      Not only general relativity, but also ALL the metric theory of gravity lack the stress-energy tensor of the gravitational field. In any case, this is NOT a fundamental drawback, indeed it is a fundamental beauty geometric characteristic of this kind of theories. In fact, the stress-energy tensor of the gravitational field CANNOT exist for Einstein Equivalence Principle. As we can ALWAYS choice a reference frame, the free falling one, in which all the gravitational fields, and hence their energies, are null. In other words, the gravitational energy CANNOT be localized. I suggest you to carefully read paragraph 20.4 at page 466 of the book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, where this issue is carefully examined and explained. I recall that, today, Einstein Equivalence Principle is tested at a level 10^-13.

      Best wishes,

      Ch.

        Dear Fedosin,

        I am an independent researcher and have not published any papers..My theory being purely classical (denying both the QM and the relativity theories of Einstein) and with no institutional back up, it is difficult to find any journal willing to publish my work. However, my findings have been self-published in the book form titled "The reality of the physical world" now available at amazon.com. I am also planning to hoist a web site for providing information to anybody interested.

        In my theory, the nucleus is made up of electron-positron pairs (held together by alternate gravitational and electrostatic bonds) with lone positrons distributed symmetrically (similar to electron distribution outside) among them. The force available to an electron/positron is finite and the whole force is used to form electron-positron chains. So only the force available to to the lone positrons is available to the nucleus for outside interactions.The electrostatic and gravitational forces of electron are taken to be equal, and the strong constant can be got from this. In a hydrogen atom, the gravitational force between the nucleus and the electron is calculated using the same constant, and it is proposed that the spin energy of electron (actual spinning motion) is balanced by gravity and its kinetic energy is balanced by electrostatic force. As there are three independent forces (including the inertial force due to the motion of electron), the atom is spatially stable.

        jose p koshy

        Dear Christian,

        I agree with you that general relativity (GR) is perfect theory which give us exact results. But the problem with GR is connected with the methodology of physics itself and with the fundamentals of the theory. To make the situation more clear let take the next example. Suppose we have a steady flow of an incompressible liquid with a constant flow rate through the tube which has a variable cross-section S, in the absence of gravitational forces. If [math]\rho[/math] is the density of the liquid, V is the average speed of the flow, then the formula for the mass flux is: [math]\rho V S=const =C[/math] When the section S is changing the speed V of the liquid and the density of the kinetic energy Ek in this section is changed: [math]E_k=\frac {\rho V^2} {2}= \frac {C^2} {2 \rho S^2}[/math] In this case the density of the kinetic energy is inextricably linked with the geometry, and we can write the law of conservation of energy density [math]E_k + f(S)= const [/math] where [math]f(S)[/math] is a geometric function of the cross section S, which in general can arbitrarily depend on external conditions affecting S. On the other hand, we can do not use the geometry, and consider the potential energy of the liquid in the form of pressure P, then the sum of the kinetic and the potential energy will be saved regardless of S: [math]E_k +P= const [/math] This shows that the problem with pseudotensor energy field arises in general relativity because of the fact that there the role of energy is performed by geometric quantities, and the gravitational field itself is reduced to the metric field and the curvature of spacetime. Of course, gravity changes the movement and energy of photons, which are used for the spacetime measurements. Hence the conclusion that the metric tensor in the presence of gravity changes its form relative to the metric of Minkowski space in the special theory of relativity. Therefore, such a change in GR metrics associated with gravity so as to satisfy the principle of equivalence. But then in GR energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational field disappear, and the field itself is not a real physical field but the geometrical object. Hence, there are paradoxes. For example in GR contribution to the gravitational field can make any other field, but the gravitational field itself do not make similar in the form of contributions in other fields. Then, why the gravitational field has such unique status? Because of the geometrization of the field in general relativity, we may never know exactly what causes spacetime to curve near the masses? And what is the maximum extent of this spacetime distortion? And where is the evidence that the degree of curvature is able to achieve the status of a black hole? Some of these problems are solved in the Covariant theory of gravitation. In this theory, gravitation exists as a fundamental physical field and has its own energy-momentum tensor like the electromagnetic field. That's gravitational field affects the movement and energy of photons or other test particles, and thus changes the spacetime metric, found by these photons and particles. The role of geometry is reduced only to a change in the metric by gravitation. At the same time as the physical mechanism of gravitation provides a mechanism in the Le Sage theory of gravitation, i.e. gravitation is a consequence of the fluxes of gravitons. And we can find density of energy of gravitons fluxes (http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0076).

        Sergey Fedosin

        Your paper offers a model of the structure of elementary particles within a nested cosmological concept. There were a lot of interesting ideas in there and clearly you have stimulated a significant amount of discussion and debate.

        Thank you

          Dear Jose,

          I found the reference to your book in internet: Jose P. Koshy (2010), The Reality of the Physical World. The Ultimate Theory in Physics , 290 pages. As I understand in the book is your value of strong gravitational constant which is equal to 2.78x10^32 in SI units since you determined it with the help of two electrons. In my opinion we must use forces between proton and electron. In hydrogen atom there are four forces influence the electron which is there in the form of disk cloud: Two forces of attraction, one is the proton strong gravitation, another is the electric force between proton and electron; two forces of repulsion, one is the electric force of charged substance of electron (all parts of electron repel each other), the other is centrifugal force. All the forces approximately equal to each other. Then from the equality of the electric and gravitational forces strong gravitational constant is 1.514 x10^29. Your value 2.78x10^32 is more in 1836 times that is relation of proton mass to electron mass.You can see also the idea of dynamical conception of the electron spin .

          Sergey Fedosin

          Dear Sergei,

          I have been studying the references that you gave me in my FQXi forum and I find they fascinating. I am still studying LITG, but it seems to be some kind of gravitomagnetic approximation to the field theory of Gravity (FTG).

          LITG uses scalar and vector potentials, whereas FTG includes a tensor potential as well because the source of the gravitational field in FTG is the generalized stress-energy tensor \Theta^{\mu\nu} instead of a four-current as in LITG. Similar remarks about the expression for the gravitational force in each approach.

          The reference on Strong gravitation does not give the Lagrangian. Is the LITG Lagrangian used in Strong gravity after substituting the gravitational constant by \Gamma?

          Let me add that the "4/3 problem" is solved for electromagnetism in

          Action-at-a-distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations: The basis and application of the separated-potentials method 1996: Phys. Rev. E 53(5), 5373-5381.

          Chubykalo, Andrew E.; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman. Erratum: Action-at-a-distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations: The basis and application of the separated-potentials method [Phys. Rev. E 53, 5373 (1996)] 1997: Phys. Rev. E 55(3), 3793--3793. Chubykalo, Andrew E.; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.

          Reply to "Comment on 'Action-at-a-distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations: The basis and application of the separated-potentials method'" 1998: Phys. Rev. E 57(3), 3683--3686. Chubykalo, Andrew E.; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.

          Using the same mathematical and physical analysis the 3/4 problem is also solved in gravitation --see also ref [11] of my essay--

          Regards.

            Dear Sergey Fedosin,

            Much delighted of your work on, Scale Dimension described in the theory of, Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter.

            To describe an infinite universe with finite expressions for quantization, we propose a holarchial clustering of the matters of universe, that seems to have some correlations with the Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, though there are specific differences between these two scenarios; in that your work is on the particle nature of matter whereas this work ascribes matter as eigen-rotational string continuum with the emergence of three dimensional structures.

            Thus there is a possibility of integrating both scenarios to bring out with more productive outputs and in this regard, I think, SP-Phi symmetry may be useful to explore the Tetrahedral-brane, assigned in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe; whereas the three-component symmetry of it are adaptable with the parameters that are expressional by a tetrahedral-brane.

            With best wishes

            Jayakar

              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

              Dear Jayakar,

              At the link http://www.clustermatteruniverse.net/description/hierarchy I found the geometrical picture of Universe hierarchy in the form of a cluster-matter of embedded holarchial clusters of randomly distributed heterogeneous-matters in triplets. And the minimal clustering algorithm applied on this model has been derived from a previous work on Quantum clustering and computing of information. I suppose you must now to connect your model to the real Universe hierarchy and compare them in details.

              Sergey Fedosin

              Dear Daniel,

              The Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter is some thousands years old and I am a contributor to it. In the theory evolution of matter and field quanta at lower levels of matter is the base for evolution at high levels of matter. The main patterns of evolution are similar at all levels of matter. The wave quanta and relativistic particles are born by compact objects such as nucleons and neutron stars and fill all the space. These wave quanta and relativistic particles then play the role of gravitons and form objects at high levels of matter. So we find causality in structure and evolution of Universe. With the help of coefficients of similarity we can predict properties of small particles and great objects which we can not see directly. The theory gives us receipt how may particles be constructed and we give models of nucleons, electron, quarks and so on.

              The ether in the theory exists and composed of gravitons fluxes, so we can find isotropic reference frame in every point of universe free of matter. In isotropic reference frame the speed of light and speed of gravitons is the same and do not depend on direction. Near the masses isotropy is broken and the force of gravitation appeared. Also we can understand force of inertia as the action of gravitons fluxes during of change of motion state. From here strong gravitation at the level of particles, and covariant theory of gravitation at the star-planet level are introduced. In covariant theory of gravitation the force of gravitation is a real physical force. For comparison in general relativity the force of gravitation is calculated too but has no physical explanation. More about it see my essay.

              Sergey Fedosin