A SPACE-TIME AS A PERFECT FLUID SINK FLOW by Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren

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

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 spinning bubble (i.e. here it is preferred as critical flow condition or superluminal relative flow condition of spatial fluid)

.............. Can we make an experiment to detect this flow? Do you mean these are neutrinos?

2. Moreover, one may ideally imagine both the rest body and all the spatial fluid flowing inward toward the body as forming a single closed dynamical system bounded by an outermost spherical surface of an "infinite" radius

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

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

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

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."

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 ambient spatial fluid only

end of quote

I like this section very much and it is why I gave the essay a rating of a 10. This has some similarity with

https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.1310

Acoustic geometry for general relativistic barotropic irrotational fluid flow

Matt Visser (Victoria University of Wellington), Carmen Molina-Paris (Leeds University)

(Submitted on 8 Jan 2010 (v1), last revised 6 May 2010 (this version, v2))

"Acoustic spacetimes", in which techniques of differential geometry are used to investigate sound propagation in moving fluids, have attracted considerable attention over the last few decades. Most of the models currently considered in the literature are based on non-relativistic barotropic irrotational fluids, defined in a flat Newtonian background. The extension, first to special relativistic barotropic fluid flow, and then to general relativistic barotropic fluid flow in an arbitrary background, is less straightforward than it might at first appear. In this article we provide a pedagogical and simple derivation of the general relativistic "acoustic spacetime" in an arbitrary (d+1) dimensional curved-space background.

Comments: V1: 23 pages, zero figures; V2: now 24 pages, some clarifications, 2 references added. This version accepted for publication in the New Journal of Physics. (Special issue on "Classical and Quantum Analogues for Gravitational Phenomena and Related Effects")

Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)

Journal reference: New J.Phys.12:095014,2010

Although Baryarsaikhan is using a different methodology, the idea of using of fluid metaphors for General relativity has an extremely distinguished history, and I urge those reviewing this essay to also look at Matt Visser's essay above and to come to your own conclusions.

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 particles area that also close to me. I can say many favorable words, but for realistic authors it should be more important to hearing about lacks and criticism than to listening beautiful words. So let me tell some points that I see can be important.

- You treys to solve problem of gravity by entering a new kind of reality (we can call this by different names - it is not so important). In my view (and not only!) this way cannot be effective (despite you can get many correct solutions and results!) I can drive your attention on the Jayant Narlikar's gravity theory (and co) for example. It gave whole spectrum of quantitative results similar to Einstein's GR, meantime it are based on the Mach's principle that seems very different of GR basic assumptions! I mean the known results are not enough to say; "Now we known physical nature of gravity." There are many modifications of gravity theories using the ether, the hypothetical particles Lessagions, or gravitons, different kinds of fields, as well as unclear - unexplainable modern category "space-time" (entered by Minkovsky, after it curved by Einstein) etc. These all theories give results; however, no one does not give yet causal explanation of gravity! So, it must show to us that we need look on some other side to get the explanation of gravity. In my view, this question may be solved only after when we will understand the physical essence of basic particles. It is good you are a specialist in this area as well. I can offer you to check my works (see in Refs). I have gone in this way - the particles in first, then the gravity that derive as universal properties of elementary particles. It will very long way, of course, but it bring to a completed building!

So, I can welcome your article and to wish you successes!

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

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!

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