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

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!

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

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 ?

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,

JonathanAttachment #1: sakharov2.pdf

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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