Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

lami leese: on 4/10/17 at 9:00am UTC, wrote Thank you for your post, There are good post! Developed the Common Rail ...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/7/17 at 9:17am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...

Jonathan Khanlian: on 4/6/17 at 22:56pm UTC, wrote Hi Bayarsaikhan, The real Jonathan Khanlian is here. Don’t accept...

William Walker: on 4/6/17 at 22:06pm UTC, wrote Dear Bayarsaikhan B. C. I really like your idea about a clear water like...

Jonathan Dickau: on 4/1/17 at 19:31pm UTC, wrote Hmm.. It looks like Martin does not think Cahill's approach makes sense. ...

Jonathan Dickau: on 4/1/17 at 19:11pm UTC, wrote Thank you Bayarsaikhan, I hope we can find some common ground to explore. ...

Bayarsaikhan Choisuren: on 3/31/17 at 13:08pm UTC, wrote Dear John-Erik Persson, its mathematics are very easy. I believe that it...

John-Erik Persson: on 3/31/17 at 12:56pm UTC, wrote Bayarsaikhan I find your article very interesting, but difficult to judge...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Agnew: "The universe is finite and not infinite. The notion of infinity or..." in Watching the Observers

Anonymous: ""According to quantum mechanics, a vacuum isn't empty at all. It's actually..." in Manipulating the Quantum...

Lorraine Ford: "Dear Rajiv, I have already addressed your 3 points, but I will put it to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Georgina, That is very interesting, but please remember that the..." in Watching the Observers

Peter Morgan: "An e-mail sent to me by Springer Nature today tells me that because I am at..." in Manipulating the Quantum...

munized ward: "Variety exists inside all populaces of life forms. This happens somewhat in..." in Natural Selection in...

Pentcho Valev: "Not Even Wrong Concepts in Physics: Entropy The following argument is..." in We Are All Connected

Rajiv Singh: "Dear Lorraine, Oh! I did not check your recent responses. Let me address..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.


FQXi FORUM
June 23, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: A SPACE-TIME AS A PERFECT FLUID SINK FLOW by Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 20:20 GMT
Essay Abstract

This paper assumes that an extraordinary invisible spatial perfect fluid sink flow that has a critical flow speed equal to light speed c, which can be treated as four-dimensional Minkowski continuum. As considering all elementary particles act as spatial perfect fluid sinks of infinitesimally small strengths, Newtonian dynamics can be extended while theoretically deriving formulas of the relativistic mass increase and the inverse square law of gravity, with an additional term that may represent the Pioneer anomaly. A mass-generation mechanism is alternatively explained on base of the spatial perfect fluid space. Scientific interpretations of concepts of mass and electric charges, and also accelerating expansion of the Universe, cyclic model of Big Rip and Bing Bang, are made.

Author Bio

Bayarsaikhan Choisuren is a theoretical physicist and worked as a researcher for many years in Institute of Physics and Technology in Mongolia and also in Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (Dubna, Russia) on Glauber Modeling in High Energy Nuclear Collisions. I have been working as an independent theoretical physicist on Foundations of (modified) Gravitational Theory since 2005.

Download Essay PDF File




Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 17:17 GMT
Dear Dr. Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren,



Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 00:45 GMT
Time line is a real number line displaying a list of changes in chronological order in a reference phenomenon, as whose each point corresponds an each change in the reference phenomenon within a closed dynamical system.

Here, the number of zero means that infinitesimally small value, which means that it never reaches an absolute void within our biological framework for consciousness. 

And the infinite number means that infinitesimally large value, which means that it never reaches an absolute large matter, within our biological framework for consciousness.

As considering Quantum Field Theory implies that the vacuum is full of virtual particles that emerge and quickly disappear in free space, taking into account the Conservation Law and the Constancy of Speed of Light in vacuum, the free space should be not empty, it might be filled with an invisible perfect fluid with a critical flow velocity equal to the light speed.

Consequently, the relative motion in General Theory of Relativity is supposed to be a motion relative to the invisible perfect fluid (called spatial fluid). Therefore, the Speed of Light in vacuum is supposed to be constant relative to its ambient spatial fluid instead of the constancy of the speed of light in all frames of reference.




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 08:04 GMT
Nice essay Choisuren,

Your proposals are very nice but… I got some doubts also please, if you don’t mind….

1. A fundamental property of the space-time as a perfect fluid sink flow field is characterized by a critical flow speed equal to light speed c, above which a viscosity is locally generated in shearing flow, while producing infinitesimally small singular sinks in a form of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 10:27 GMT
Thanks to Satyavarapu Naga for your attention.

Creation of all elementary particles including virtual particles are caused by a superluminal relative flow occurred locally. For neutrino with infinitesimally small mass, its initial speed during its creation must be more than the speed of light and so the neutrino is to be in a superluminal motion while slightly decelerating.

Spin direction of neutrino must be parallel to its linear momentum in order to reduce the friction in its ambient spatial fluid.

Ch.Bayarsaikhan



Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 17:04 GMT
Unified visible surface am infinite in all of its singular aspect including duration. Unified visible surface was never created. Abstract complex codswallop about invisible particles was created by theoretical physicists.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 06:45 GMT
Thank you for sharing your idea.

To my opinion, are there visible and invisible surfaces?

And the invisible surface is to be none sensible and unknown origin (codswallop) around invisible particles.

Would you explain me the surfaces (visible and invisible) of what…?

How the invisible particles are associated with the surfaces?

Are there any energy dissipation such as a friction?




Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 23:38 GMT
Dear Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Chouisuren

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

report post as inappropriate

Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 23:45 GMT
Dear Héctor Daniel Gianni,

Thanks for sharing your idea.

I will read your essay and reply to you, soon

Ch.Bayarsaikhan




Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 11:17 GMT
Dear Bayarsaikhan,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists and lyrics filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). FQXI Contests are first of all new ideas. You give such ideas. Yours faithfully, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 14:06 GMT
Thank you for reading my essay. I think that the aether came from ancient Creek was proposed by the greatest philosophers. We should remember they began now day's science. I cannot think that the greatest philosophers said completely wrong.

I think that at the foundation of the natural structure (Foundations of Hierarchy), there might not be any energy dissipation while being perfect.



Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear Sir Vladimir,

Also the second term in Eq.6 in my essay may correspond the Fly-by Anomaly

Ch.Bayarsaikhan




Harold Kyriazi wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 04:32 GMT
Dear Bayarsaikhan,

I read your article, skipping over the math and just trying to grasp your concepts. My problem with current physics is that it is highly abstractly mathematical, i.e., it is never stated what the equations apply to. And it's not just that they're reserving judgment until the ultimate basis of reality becomes clear. Many of them (Stephen Hawking & Max Tegmark, for example) honestly think there IS no basis other than naked equations. I find this foolish.

And, while it seems you have tried to make some sense of things, I find your "spatial fluid" and "anti-spatial fluid" almost equally abstract and undefined. For example, you seem to envision your fluid(s) to be perfect ones, i.e., imaginary (all the actual liquids we know of are particulate and viscous). That's fine as a first approximation, but to my way of thinking, it cannot be the fundamental basis of reality.

I like this relevant quote from Parmenides: "Only that can really exist which can also be thought."

report post as inappropriate


Andrew Beckwith wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 15:54 GMT
quote

We presume that dynamically curved space-time, time dilation and length contraction in Special and General Theory of Relativity can be characterized by a change in sink flow field pattern of spatial fluid caused by a change in the spatial fluid sink rate of material objects. Also it is conceived that light propagates through a vacuum at light speed, c constantly relative to its...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 08:06 GMT
Dear Dr. Andrew Beckwith,

Thank you so much for your valuable advice.

I will certainly take all your comments into consideration.

Best Regards,

Ch.Bayarsaikhan




George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 05:43 GMT
Hi dear Bayarsaikhan,

I have read (quickly) your interesting article and just can say that it seems to me a serious work within accepted criteria and with its professional level. It deserves to good evaluation, in comparison with the represented many others. Your works in gravity area have intrigued me. In addition, you have interest as well as you are a specialist on the elementary...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 20:26 GMT
Dear Ch. Bayarsaikhan,

although I have other understanding of the nature of space, time, movement, gravitation and other fundamental categories of a material world, I respect your approach and appreciate your serious scientific work presented at the FQXi contest.

Nevertheless, I am assured of hopelessness of the researches leaning on conclusions of the Theory of relativity. I consider the principle of relativity and the gravitation concept of Einstein at least incorrect, without looking at faultlessness of mathematical models.

I wish you successes and good luckw!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir A. Rodin

report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 12:11 GMT
Dear Bayarsaikhan

Yes, I agree that //The speed of light in vacuum is constant// However, on //relative to ‘Space’ itself, instead of relative to a material object// it is not so unequivocally as this seems. Particularly, from this imagination has been arisen the existence of ether or (absolute system of measurement) that breaks Galilean relativity principle. This theme is large to start discuss it right here. Check please in my article (in Refs) What I need to say It is there. I cannot say you will accept with me, but I do not have other answer. I already have evaluated (and criticized also) your work earlier (see my previous comment)

Let my wish you success!

report post as inappropriate

Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 12:22 GMT
Thanks for your massage,

I am interested in your article.

If it is possible, would you send me the article.

I mean the "space" that aether or the invisible hypothetical perfect fluid as aether, in this case, what happen to the Galilean relativity principle?

Ch.Bayarsaikhan



George Kirakosyan replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 13:08 GMT
Thank you again, for your interest.

I can say previously that your critical remarks will be very valuable to me!

(The article is large, there included GR analyze also. I would drive here your kindly attention on the last formula - (38) on theoretical value of G = 6,675* 10^-11 ...)

It is here: ARTICLE

report post as inappropriate

Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 13:30 GMT
Thank you for sending your article.

The second term in Eq.6 in my essay is to corresponds to the Fly-by anomaly. Just remember Anderson’s empirical relation.

Thanks again,

Ch.Bayarsaikhan




George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 05:13 GMT
Dear Bayarsaikhan

Your formula is interesting of course, but I am talking about pure theoretical derivation of G. Of course we can get its value using known some other values as for example M(sun) and orbital parameters of planets, M(earth) and satellite orbits, r(sh) for some known body, average density of matter in the cosmos and Hubble constant etc. The matter is that all such values we had know by calculations only, where we has using experimentally opened Cavendish' constant G. Thus, G hides inside of all such kinds of values, and we can get it from there by some necessary transformations. Then we can understand that it will incorrect to accept such results as a “pure theoretical” deduction. Meanwhile, I have used in my formula (38) the single parameter – Compton’s wavelength of electron that we know by independent of gravity ways. So, it can be taken as pure theoretical result. We can continue our discussion in future, and now let me just ask about on your decision/evaluation on my work because the time now is limited…. let me know please.

My best wishes in any case!

report post as inappropriate

Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 05:20 GMT
The Fly-by anomaly is the most interesting for usage of the Eq. 6 in my essay. In other words, The Fly-by anomaly can be calculated by the Eq. 6

Ch.Bayarsaikhan



George Kirakosyan replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 11:03 GMT
Dear Bayarsaikhan, actually I did not study the Fly-by effect and know this problem not so well. So I cannot tell something certainly on this subject, but only that there are not exact finalised dates on this effect. Maybe your formula really gives its quantitative description - but it can be confirmed and accepted after of finalised observed results - I can wish only it will be like that!

And what about second point of my post?

I still hope hearing you!

Regards

report post as inappropriate


David Pinyana wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 14:53 GMT
Very interesting essay that gives a vision of what could be the Planck Landscape (10 e-20 to 10 e-35 m) that I also present in my essay "THE SCALE LANDSCAPES OF THE UNIVERSE".

It is not the same vacuum than nothing.... vacuum space is something fluid that could contain other smaller universes with different space dimensions: the KK spaces ?

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 21:13 GMT
Greetings professor Choisuren,

I concur with Dr. Beckwith's assessment that there is some value to this work, and that it is worthy of attention and further development. You have moved well beyond the toy model phase, and have developed some elements of a working theory, but it is not quite there yet. As Andy points out; the idea has a long history in theoretical Physics. Andrei Sakharov wrote a brief paper back in 1967 (attached to this post) which got people thinking about gravity in fluid mechanical terms, but it was likely explored even before then. Remember that Einstein's work with Infeld framed GR in terms of a luminous ether.

There has been a lot of work lately, on different flavors of emergent gravity - thermodynamic gravity, entropic gravity, induced gravity, holographic gravity, and a common feature is to treat gravity as a residual force, rather than fundamental. Your work has a similar flavor, so it inherits some of the same advantages and flaws. A question I have is "what holds the drain open?" This is a question I addressed in my first ever Gravity Research Foundation essay, just submitted this week. I also employ the metaphor of a sink drain, though it is not my central thesis. So I obviously have respect for what you are saying.

All the Best,

Jonathan

attachments: sakharov2.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 12:16 GMT
Dear Jonathan Khanlian,

Thank you for your comment and the article of A. D. Sakharov, you sent.

And I very much appreciate that

“This is a question I addressed in my first ever Gravity Research Foundation essay, just submitted this week. I also employ the metaphor of a sink drain, though it is not my central thesis”

If it is possible, I would like to read your essay in Gravity Research Foundation.

Thank you again,

With Best Regards,

Ch.Bayarsaikhan



Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 20:40 GMT
Good Sir,

I am the other Jonathan (and I think there are only two!) in this contest. I talk about putting the elephants in the room with quantum gravity researchers to work. I shall be happy to forward a preprint of the GRF paper to you, or send a link once I upload it to viXra.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 23:03 GMT
Dear Jonathan J. Dickau,

Thank you for your comment and the article of A. D. Sakharov, you sent.

And I very much appreciate that

“This is a question I addressed in my first ever Gravity Research Foundation essay, just submitted this week. I also employ the metaphor of a sink drain, though it is not my central thesis”

If it is possible, I would like to read your essay in Gravity Research Foundation.

Thank you again,

With Best Regards,

Ch.Bayarsaikhan




Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 13:11 GMT
Dear Bayarsaikhan,

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of the highest praise.

You are absolutely right «we assume space-time as an extraordinary invisible … fluid filling all available free space throughout the entire Universe, while flowing inward toward all material objects and having created all subatomic particles … .»

I removed the words "perfect" and "in a form similar to a singular sink" from your proposal, because I believe that there should not be abstract and ideal properties of matter and fields in physics. I do not insist on this, but I always ask to find analogues of supernatural properties in the physical world.

Nevertheless, this does not detract from the value of your work in my eyes.

We came to many identical conclusions, but you used mathematical methods, I used analogies of physical mechanisms.

I believe that it is provisions of yours that are the key to the answer about the self-organization of matter and to the question set by this contest.

You might also like reading my essay .

I wish you success in the contest.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 11:02 GMT
Dear Ch.Bayarsaikhan

As I am a physicist of gravitation, I find your Essay to be one of the most intriguing of this Essay Contest. The issue that your work preserves the structure of both Special and General Theories of Relativity as well as the Equivalence Principle is of fundamental importance. In fact, differently from you, too much people who claims to create alternative theories of gravity do not understand the real meaning of the Equivalence Principle and its geometrical consequences. Thus, I agree with my friends Jonathan J. Dickau and Andrew Beckwith on the importance of your work and I will give you the highest score.

Congrats and good luck in the Contest, I hope that you will have a chance to read our Essay.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 05:55 GMT
I hope you enjoy the paper I sent..

And if I didn't mention Reginald Cahill; his work has some parallels to yours, so it might be worthwhile to check out. He also treats spacetime as a fluid, but as a flowing fractal vacuum at the microscale.

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 08:37 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thank for your massage.

I will read your article you sent.

Several years ago, I have read some articles of Reginald Cahill who live in Australia.

Do you know Tom Martin and others who work on gravity?

With Best Regards,

Ch.Bayarsaikhan



Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 19:11 GMT
Thank you Bayarsaikhan,

I hope we can find some common ground to explore. Tom Martin's name is unfamiliar, but I will research if perhaps his work is worthwhile to examine. On the subject of gravitation; I do not favor or champion only one formulation, because I am of the opinion that progress on several fronts is encouraging and there is more to be learned by gleaning hints from several sources.

Beverly Berger made a statement to this effect in a plenary talk at GR21, citing how various camps are isolated and competitive but sometime work on the same idea independently, and suggesting progress would be quicker if they compared notes. Lee Smolin picked up that thread in the breakout sessions on quantum gravity, and encouraged researchers to do so.

So while our approaches are very different, there are areas of agreement to expand on, and perhaps some common ground after all.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 19:31 GMT
Hmm..

It looks like Martin does not think Cahill's approach makes sense. I have not read his objections, and it might be a while before I do, but it seems odd for Martin to be so bluntly harsh toward someone who appears to be in a nearby camp. I can more understand how the String Theory guys are rejecting of the Loops crowd (or CDT, Causal Sets, ...), since ST is top-down (building from higher dimensions) while the other programs are bottom-up approaches.

I identify more with Ashtekar, who tries to learn from all the different approaches what can add to his research, because I think he embraces the idea B. Berger expressed above. I got to meet Abhay at GR21, and I thanked him for being a vocal champion of the broad-minded approach. On the other hand; if Martin's analysis showed up a major flaw in Cahill's work, it would be better to know that before becoming a champion of his approach.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


John-Erik Persson wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 12:56 GMT
Bayarsaikhan

I find your article very interesting, but difficult to judge since i have problems understanding its mathematics.

Thank you and regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Author Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 13:08 GMT
Dear John-Erik Persson,

its mathematics are very easy. I believe that it is correct.

My model makes the special theory of relativity much understandable for every one. i.e the phenomena in the special theory of relativity such as relativistic mass increase, Lorentz contraction and time dilution is much understandable for fluid space and sinks.

Thank you for your question.

Ch.Bayarsaikhan




William Walker wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 22:06 GMT
Dear Bayarsaikhan B. C.

I really like your idea about a clear water like sinkhole (wormhole)but since it is invisible... is it moving faster than the speed of light? I'm not sure if I saw that...

and if you get a chance check out my paper - A Theory of Everything...

*and check out my post that I wrote today 4/6 about dark matter

Good luck in the contest...

William Walker

report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 09:17 GMT
Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate


lami leese wrote on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 09:00 GMT
Thank you for your post, There are good post! Developed the Common Rail fuel system for heavy duty vehicles and turned it into practical use on their ECD-U2 common-rail system.Modern common rail systems, whilst working on the same principle sensor are governed by an engine control unit (ECU). The design was acquired by the German Common Rail Shim & Gasket kit companyRobert Bosch GmbH for completion of development and refinement for mass-production Common Rail Nozzle . In hindsight,As the new technology proved to be highly profitable. The Common Rail Injector Valve had little choice but to sell, however,In 1997 they extended its use for passenger cars Common Rail Injector .The first passenger car that used the common rail system.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.