The gravity-fluid, again: Would papers like these be enough?

1. It was just yesterday, in my last post, that I spoke of the idea of the gravity field-fluid. I had thought of this idea on my own quite some time back (may be some two decades+ back), but had never written anything about it. One of the reasons was: I was not sure if writing just a scientific paper on a topic like this would be enough. Another important reason was: gravity is not really a part of my main research interests, and, as an “outsider,” I was not sure if, not having taken any courses or read books at least up to the advanced BS/beginning MS-level, I should venture (also) in this direction or not.

Yet, as it so happens, the very process of (actually) writing down something is just wonderful. It brings clarity to your thought process the way “simply” thinking about something, but without writing it down in an as coherent a piece as possible, doesn’t.

The reason seems to be psycho-epistemological in nature: (i) the process of writing itself forces you to focus and clarify your own mind on the topic, and (ii) once the thought is put in the concrete form of a written piece, it frees up your mind to think further, even afresh, about it. The net result of both is: your mind begins to forge and hold a longer span of the relevant conceptual linkages.

Yesterday was actually the first time, I guess, that I at all wrote down anything about this topic. Not just publicly, but also privately. And, it immediately had this clarifying effect… The more I thought about it, the more I seemed to begin to get convinced about the soundness of the idea.

2. So, today, I decided to do a bit of search on the net. The first couple of search strings didn’t yield any significantly new results, but the search string “forces between two ideal fluid flow sinks” did.

I found a paper listed at the site [^], rapidly browsed through it, found it very interesting, and a couple of further searches later, I found these papers:

  • Xiao-Song Wang (2008) “Derivation of the Newton’s law of gravitation based on a fluid mechanical singular model of particles,” Progress in Physics, vol. 4, October 2008, pp. 25–30 (PDF of the paper, here [^])
  • Xiao-Song Wang (2008) “Derivation of Maxwell’s equations based on a continuum mechanical model of vacuum and a singularity model of electric charges,” Progress in Physics, vol. 2, April 2008, pp. 111–120 (PDF of the paper, here [^])
  • Xiao-Song Wang (2008) “Derivation of Coulomb’s law of forces between static electric charges based on spherical source and sink model of particles,” arXiv:physics/0609099 [^]

3. Do go through the above papers. They all are pretty well-written, though I do have a  couple of broader comments to make:

3.1 The third paper is just an arXiv submission, and that too, made to the physics.gen-ph category. As many in the leading universities believe (e.g. Prof. Scott Aaronson of MIT), the “general physics” category at arXiv is not, say, very respectable. [TBD insert link to a recent informal comment he made just in the passing, at his blog.]

The first two papers appear in a journal that obviously is not even in the second-tier of the reputed journals. See, for instance, an entire volume of this journal and the related information, here [^].

3.2 Which reminded me of a couple of links I have been for quite some time wanting to share with you here.

3.2.1 The first link is to Prof. John Baez’s crack-pot index [^]. There is, now, even a Wiki page about it [^]. Apparently, Baez had proposed the index in 1992. Of some interest could be this link to Fred J. Gruenberger’s 1962 article (PDF) [^].

(Well, Wang’s papers at least are written using LaTeX!)

BTW, another link I guess I can insert here is to Prof. Streater’s “Lost Causes in Physics,” [^]

3.2.2 On the other hand, here is a link to Marty Green’s (actually sincere) take on John Baez’s proposal: “I score 155 on John Baez’s Crackpot Index” [^].

4. Now, returning back to the gravity-fluid proposal, I have a question for you:

Do you think that papers like Wang’s be enough?

Not just in the light of what the physics establishment thinks like—its prejudice—but also considering the objective statement of the problem itself, and the objective merits of papers like Wang’s—their specific contents, and any omission they might have?

… Here, let me hasten to add, though I haven’t yet completed reading all three of Wang’s papers, from whatever I gather from a rapid browsing, they do seem pretty well-written—as scientific papers. The issue is not that Wang’s papers are of quality particularly lower than those that are not only acceptable but also routinely accepted, in the usual journals of high standing.

And, the issue also is not just the prejudices of physicists.

The issue is: Would just scientific papers be enough, given both: (i) the physics problem itself, and then, also (ii) how the establishment views it (including not regarding it as a problem to be solved, in the first place)?

And, I  have another question for you: What additional inputs would be required to make this idea satisfactorily acceptable, first to you, and then, possibly, also to the scientific community?

Care to think?

5. And, apart from it all, I think I will come back to this topic again. … Just remind me if I don’t, right in the near future (of a month or two, that is).

* * * * *   * * * * *   * * * * *

A Song I Like:

(Hindi) “jogi o jogi, pyaar mein kyaa hogaa…”
Music: R. D. Burman
Singers: Kishore Kumar and Lata Mangeshkar
Lyrics: (??)



2 thoughts on “The gravity-fluid, again: Would papers like these be enough?

  1. Pingback: Coming back to the second “world”… | Ajit Jadhav's Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.