The Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter as the Source of New Ideas by Sergey G Fedosin

Dear Sergey,

Thank you for the references and information.

The reference to CTG that you give reads: "According to the axioms of CTG the source of the gravitational field is the mass 4-current J^i , and the field itself is characterized by the 4-potential". This confirms my previous post on that this is an approximation to the field theory of gravity mentioned in my essay. In FTG, the source of the gravitational potential is the generalized stress-energy tensor \Theta^ab. In a first approximation \Theta^ab --> T^ab, applying an additional gravitomagnetic approximation, T^ab --> T^0i = cJ^i; T^ji = 0, we recover the field equations for the 4-potential.

If Strong gravity is obtained by substituting the gravitational constant. How does the resulting Lagrangian reproduce the kinetic term of the QCD Lagrangian? What part is associated to the gauge invariant gluonic field strength tensor?

Yes, v' is the velocity of the source. The solution to the 4/3 problem of electromagnetism is given in the Phys.Rev.E paper cited above. The paper "Modified Newtonian Dynamics and Dark Matter from a Generalized Gravitational Theory" only applies the equation of motion (with the new gravitational potentials that correspond to the new electromagnetic potentials in Phys.Rev.E) to astrophysical phenomena, showing that dark matter is unneeded. Repeating the same analysis in the Phys.Rev.E we can eliminate the 4/3 problem from gravitational fields as well.

Regards

Sergey

As per your comment on my blog.

This theory can only have the status of a belief, not objective knowledge, because it involves presumptions which are outwith our experience. In other words, logically, it could be a proper explanation of physical existence, but we cannot know.

A key concept seems to be the assertion that there is no form of elementary particle, ie substance is infinitely divisible. This is contradictory to the physical reality we experience, which has substance, occurs independently of us, and alters. So, by definition, as at any given point in time, there must be a definitive physically existent state in order that existence (as we know it) occurs, and then re-occurs differently. And we are trapped in that physical experience, only beliefs can postulate alternatives.

Now, what constitutes a physically existent state (ie reality) is the real question. And it is not the elementary substances, as such. That idea reveals a confusion between the physical substance of existence and what is its existent reality (manifestation). Think on this: take any elementary particle (forget what it is, etc), and just pose the question: as at any point in time what constitutes its reality (physically existent state)? The answer cannot be: 'it', because we know there is alteration. Say 'it' 'spins' (again forget all the concepts behind this), then what is its reality? Remember, it cannot be in more than one state at a time. Or put another way around, if one asserts its existent reality is more than 'one degree of spin' (which can be defined), then the question immediately arises, where is the 'cut-off' point, half a spin, a complete spin? There is no physically justifiable answer, every possibility except one involves change, and that means what is being referred is not a reality, but more than one.

So reality is a physically existent state, and that is probably associated with the state of the properties of whatever constitutes the elementary substances. Existence is analogous to a film, that is, if it could be completely differentiated, then the point at which no form of change occurred could be identified, and that is what exists, but only as at that point in time. There is no time in reality, timing is the quantification of the rate at which change to a reality occurs.

Paul

Sergey:

Very , very good essay.

I've read it, and given my opinion with my rating.

Thanks for answering the questions in my "fable" essay.

I agree with you that maybe one of our worst assumptions these days might be the Big Bang.

Regards.

Juan E Ramos Beraud

P.s. there is little time left for the rating; we should rate the good essays ASAP.

Sergey

Yes. Knowledge of any given physically existent state (reality)is only potentially available to us via the consequence of an interaction (aka light, noise, vibration, etc-but these are also physically existent). With the evolution of sensory systems, these phenomena acquired the functional role of enabling sentient organisms to be aware of reality. That is, in the context of the sensory systems, they are representations of reality.

This introduces another layer of potential factors which can obscure what originally occurred (reality). But that is because the sensory systems are the only basis upon which we can know reality, not because they in any way cause it. The ultimate output being perception of reality, not reality. That, both in terms of what was received and what created that, occurs independently of the sensory systems. The problem is extricating objective knowledge of that.

Paul

Dear Sergey,

Thank you for teaching me about strong gravitation, a subject that I did not know!

Moreover, I liked your essay and the similarities with some ideas in my own essay.

Regards

Sergey,

I received notice on my essay's blog that you had rated my essay. I'll copy my reply here since you are not likely otherwise to ever see it:

---

Sergey,

Thanks for your notification, I guess. Not that it makes any real difference, since, unlike some others, I haven't been mass marketing my essay to the rest of the community, soliciting ratings (some even hinting at Quid pro quo). As a result I could see that mine would not be in the top 35 essays as rated by the community.

However I should inform you that, with my background in information systems analysis, I find that my essay's position within the list ordered by community rating dropped precipitously following your rating notice. That indicates two conditions: my essay had not been previously rated by many members of the community and your rating was substantially lower than previous ratings.

Again, all this rating stuff is meaningless since my essay would not have ever been one of the finalists (unless perhaps I had very successfully promoted it with an intense marketing campaign). However, more important to me than knowing you rated my essay would be to better understand why you might have given it a low rating, presuming that your rating was based on some specific evaluations of my essay. With no animosity, I would be very interested in understanding your assessment of my essay. Please do explain further!

Sincerely, Jim

---

I have not rated your essay, but I must say that if I had done I would have given it a low rating, since it violates the principal intent of this essay contest. Please see FQXi ESSAY CONTEST: Introduction section II "EVALUATION CRITERIA" under "Relevant:"

"(Note: Successful and interesting essays will not use this topic as an opportunity to trot out their pet theories simply because those theories reject assumptions of some other or established theory. Rather, the challenge here is to create new and insightful questions or analysis about basic, often tacit, assumptions that can be questioned but often are not.)"

Good luck in promoting your grand theory.

Sincerely, Jim

Спасибо Сергей Вам за комментарии.

Я к сожалению очень плохо владею английским языком, все равно как то пытаюсь

донести свои мысли до общественности. Кстати сказать подвигло меняя на сие занятие

то, что смог изготовить двигатель не использующий моторного топлива.

Dear Sergey,

I fully understand why the position of my essay within the list ordered by community ratings was lowered so much with your low rating. Moreover, I see comments from other authors, even those whose essays are highly ranked, indicating that you have also rated them low.

Since your notification was a standard form for all authors, with no personal greeting and the mispelling of 'Good', one must wonder if you even had any objective cause fro rating essays low!

I would hope you'd extend the courtesy to all authors whose essays you rate to make specific comments about why you rated them as you did. That would also allow the authors the opportunity to respond to your issues - perhaps you misunderstood, since English is apparently not your native language.

James T. Dwyer

Hi Sergey,

I reread your answer and the materials you are refer too, but I haven't found a single prediction.

Any number of models can explain what we already know. The one and only test of the possible validity of a theory is its capacity to make new predictions that are original to it.

A physics theory must do three things. Describe, explain and predict.

I know you explain there is no space to list all the predictions of your theory. That's fine. But I'm sure there's space here enough to make one or two original predictions.

By predictions I mean something that can be experimentally verified or observed.

Looking forward to them.

DLB

Dear Sergey,

So, I'd still be most interested in why you rated my essay low, so that I can understand what shortcoming it might have. I suspect that you may have categorically dismissed it as naive because I am not a physicist. However, you may notice if you read the comments posted that some professional physicists have ranked my essay highly. I refer to this only because this may point out some misunderstanding due to language comprehension, not because I have any need to win this contest.

For example, do you understand that I am identifying improper methods used to originally infer the existence of galactic dark matter, establishing its general acceptance within the astrophysical community? By invalidating the expectation that galaxies should rotate just like planetary systems (in conjunction with referenced studies that successfully describe galactic rotation without dark matter or MOND), any perceived requirement for galactic dark matter should be eliminated.

If you understand that objective, I think you should realize that this is not even inconsistent with you own grand theory. IMO, an essay should be rated based on whether or not it complies with the stated objectives of the competition and how well it achieves its intent. Invalidating the falsely perceived requirement for galactic dark matter addresses a fundamental issue in physics. I think I have provided a compelling argument to that end. Please extend to me the courtesy of explaining the shortcoming of my essay that caused you to rate it low, even if they are subjective.

Sincerely, Jim

Sergey,

You theory of infinite hierarchical nesting of matter -- as near as I can tell there is a scalar comparison of stellar formations and matter in terms of structure?

I probably didn't spend enough time in examining your concept.

Jim