Yes

And the presence of dark energy , 70% of the energy of the Universe and 15 times that of all the energy contained in matter, is proof enough.

Dear Stefano,

I do not understand why the conception of space-time should go against the conception of a hyperfluid, I think that both concepts fit very well with each other. Let me recommend the work of Roman Baudrimont I think he points in that direction

Hello Stefano Quattrini

Thank you Sergio Garcia Chimeno for mentioning me.

In the list of articles you mentioned, there are many others that suggest that space-time would be a fluid. Moreover, the study of Einstein's equation suggests that the interpretation of a fluid space-time is an absolute necessity! For that, I refer you to my recent work:

In french: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327669371_Estudy_of_the_Energy_Tensor_Impulsion_in_the_framework_of_Fluids_Mechanics

In english:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327669456_Energy_Pulse_Tensor_Study_in_Fluid_Mechanics

I think you should read my article. He explains how the conceptualization of a fluid space-time is entirely logical and appropriate.

You will see in part 3 and 4 of my article the presentation of the work done by my colleague Franck Deplace, as well as those of T. Padmanabhan; Stefano Liberati and Luca Maccione; Luis Lehner, Huan Yang and Aaron Zimmerman.

The article is quite long (12 pages). Before you start reading (or simply if you do not have time to read everything) I suggest you read the introduction and conclusion of my article.

Regards,

BAUDRIMONT Roman

Dear Roman,

I will certainly have a look at it. In any case the space-time cannot be modeled as a fluid since the foliation makes it impossible. As a static fluid yes...not as an active fluid...

IT should work if you add a degree of freedom if you use 4 dimensions and the time as an external parameter.

In other words your system should not work on a Mikowski space-time...

Stefano Quattrini

I must confess that the term "Foliation" has totally unknown to me. Therefore, I apologize. If you could explain to me what it is, I will be eternally grateful to you.

I will still try to answer your problem.

It all depends on how you consider space and time ... You have to differentiate between something that is fluid and something that has the properties of a fluid.

No doubt my article is not clear enough on the subject. To say that space-time possesses the properties of a fluid does not mean that it is a fluid. This is a fundamental difference in mechanics.

For example, there is a debate between chemists about the fluidity of a glass. It turned out that the glass in question had the properties of a fluid after a very long time, while the composition of the glass itself does not say that it is a fluid. So, is the glass a solid or a fluid? The debate was "almost" closed when scientists concluded that it was an amorphous material.

To quote this source https://sciencetonnante.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/le-verre-cet-inconnu/ which is in drench, I translate several passages in english:

"At 1500 ° C, the glass has a viscosity similar to that of honey (10 Pa.s, which is 10,000 times the viscosity of water), but when it is cooled, it increases very rapidly. a temperature of 500 ° C, the glass is about 10 ^ 19 times more viscous than water! "

[...]

"Suppose a glass of height h, of section S and density Rho.The weight of the glass is therefore F = Rho * g * h * S. Since it is applied to the surface S, the pressure of the glass on itself is P = F / S = rho * g * h For a glass 1 meter high with a density of about 2500 kg / m3, it makes a pressure of about 10 ^ 4 Pascals .

By dimensional analysis, a time is produced from a pressure P and a viscosity N by making Tau = N / P. Let us apply numerically: even for glass at 500 ° C (viscosity 10 ^ 16), it would take 10 ^ 12 seconds for it to sink under the effect of its own weight. It's been a few tens of thousands of years! And I only took the viscosity at 500 ° C ... "

Space-time would be, so to speak, always of continuous matter. A kind of intangible ether. However, he possessed some property that would assimilate it to a fluid, without it being a fluid.

Hoping to have answered your question,

Regards,

BAUDRIMONT Roman

Well, a lot of people think that now, but they have work to do.

The original debunking of the aether has a lot to do with Michelson, special relativity, and Lorenz; so we should get ahead by saying why(with the aether) the speed of light is independent of the motion of earth, of the source....because from this it was thought that the galilean transformation is invalid, for not preserving the form of the wave equation for light.(as the lorenz transformation does) Until this is really clarified, one has really no solid ground to go much further.

Is the generl feeling that the aether establishes as a reference media with respect to which the speed of light is always c, never mind what? Or does the problematic lead elswhere?

Making it responsible for all interactions is a bit too ambitious for now.

It may be assumed that in the theory of aether there must contained all new energy sources explained in my articles.

Dear Roman Baudrimont

>

the foliation is the mechanism according to which SR manages to handle time in different reference frames. Space-time is by nature foliated, every IRF has its own time according to SR which implements the Lorentz Transformations in a particular way. This makes every IRF to be totally independent even for time and as such not unifiable under the same "domain" as the Hyperfluid would entail.

GR attempts to do that but eventually for such reason nothing moves. GR with the diffeomorfism is only a very good description of potentials (Newtonian are first approx.) to be put back in classical theory (Post newtonian approximation) where the force exist in order to make things move...

Dejar Juan,

Totally agree, I discard the aether, although I have noticed that there are people who still use it to explain the transmission of light in the vacuum ..

But even so, I think that if you can model spacetime as a fluid, that makes me think that the relationship of Einstein's equations with pressure and the transmission of gravitational waves.

I would like you to read my work, if you can and want to of course, there those questions that arise are solved

We have to discard both aether , SR and GR , get the best from the laws experimentally verified in order to build a unified theory.

There is no room for another theory of Gravitation, the next is to be a unified theory...

The best theory close to unification so far is FGT, field gravitation theory but I'm afraid it has not enough degrees of freedom to be a unified theory.

It was shown in my article "The Complex Quantum and Classical Pseudo-Tachyonic Universe-IOSR" that there exists energy pressure and density when space time becomes infinite by using some arbitraries.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326414106_Varying_speed_of_light_and_field_potential_in_the_octonion_spaces

Article The Mechanics of Spacetime - A Solid Mechanics Perspective o...

Stefano Quattrini "the foliation is the mechanism according to which SR manages to handle time in different reference frames."

No. Foliation is a concept from differential geometry. So it entered the physics of spacetime via general relativity, not special relativity for which no differential geometry is needed.

Within the framework of the four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian geometry of spacetime, a foliation essentially is a decomposition of spacetime into disjoint three-dimensional spaces, each labeled by a time coordinate. These spaces must of course be spacelike, i.e., not contain pairs of timelike points. Each may be considered as a "space at a given time". Since there is more than one foliation of spacetime (if there is any at all), the decomposition is not unique, and hence, there is no unique simultaneity. I.e., it is possible to define different three-dimensional subsets of spacetime to correspond to a single time.

There are mathematical spacetimes that do not have a global foliation, such as the Goedel universe, for example. In the Goedel universe, a solution of Einstein's field equations for a dust-filled rotating spacetime, there are closed timelike curves which render global time ordering impossible. A global foliation would afford such an odering, hence it cannot exist (in that universe).

Dear Kassner,

It is true that Foliation is a mathematical concept, but what is not true is that it cannot be applied to the Minkowski's flat spacetime.A foliation F of a manifold M of dim n is a partitioning of M into submanifolds of dimension n−k, called leaves I add you a reference where you can see how to do it

https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0211/0211066.pdf

The main interest was done in General Relativity for obtaining a Hamiltonian taking surfaces (leaves) orthogonal to the time t (i.e. parallel to the partial derivative of the time). This mathematical formalism allowed to find the Wheeler–DeWitt equation for a Quantum Gravitation theory in a very natural form finding a Hamiltonian and applying on eigenfuntions of it as in Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger's formalism).

But the Foliations are fully employed in symplectic geometries for fluids, etc...that I suppose Stefano was thinking.

You can consider 4-fluid as an aether just like Einstein did.

Still, there is no special reference frame because hyperfluid is just the manifestation of the spacetime conserving magnitude of hypervelocity for all interactors but not some single measurement in separated degree of freedom...

Dear Thierry,

"Without ether, no light waves can exist, because waves can only be an oscillation of the underlaying medium. That is so in all known physics. Without ether, light would have to be particles, but in that case, all the emitted light from stars would get a velocity that is related to the motion of these stars with respect to us. This has never been measured."

Exactly, but there is a way for the electromagnetic waves to be transmitted in the vacuum, without the need of the aether and that apart it gives a logical explanation to the particle wave duality, see into:

ALL SPECIAL RELATIVITY EQUATIONS OBTAINED WITH GALILEAN TRANSFORMATION & EINSTEIN FIELD EQUATIONS OBTAINED ONLY WITH GAUSS CURVATURE AND ZOOM UNIVERSE MODEL CHARACTERISTICS ( ZOOM THEORY )

Because they have given me explanations of type: energy in the vacuum, quantum effects even sharing medium with gravitational waves, but for now no one has given me a deduction that ends with the equation of waves with speed c, which I have done

Thiery

No, Einstein is based on Lorenzian transformation. He just developed it a bit more.

Then c is unaltered by relative motion of stars and earth, although you can tell motion by the doppler effect.(or red shift)

Most of what you say is fine, regards, Juan

Dear Thierry,

Totally agree, in fact I used precisely on the mathematics of transmission of waves in solid medium to obtain it.

If you have been able to see my work and know the standard way to obtain the equation of waves both in a solid medium, as in a spring, as the sound in the air, etc, you will see that I almost follow it step by step.

With the only difference that this medium is not in our 3 dimensions, I start with the hypothesis that our universe is hyperspherical and that the zoom is the hyper-radius that curves it, from there I can demonstrate all the relativistic equations but under a point of view that fills many current holes among them that of the transmission of light in the vacuum.

Imagine for a moment that the zoom can be treated like any other dimension, you have the perfect transmission medium, because when changing the energetic state of an atom (zoom level in the atomic scale) it is a difference curvature (difference energetics) that it is transmitted in wave form by that dimension (an atom, any object, exists from the level of atomic zoom, to the zoom level of galaxies and the whole universe) note that in our 3 dimensions we would see a "ball" that every time it gets bigger (there you have the particle-wave duality)

And not only that, you would have a common point that could explain quantum entanglement as a conservation of angular momentum

Daniel Baldomir "It is true that Foliation is a mathematical concept, but what is not true is that it cannot be applied to the Minkowski's flat spacetime."

Why are you writing this? I never said that a foliation cannot be applied to Minkowskian spacetime. Of course, it can. What I said is that the concept did not enter spacetime physics via special relativity, but via genereal relativity. Historically. Maybe you should read more carefully what I actually said.

@DeMees: "Michelson and Morley tested the following hypothesis: assuming that light is carried by an aether and that this aether is global, and that the Earth is moving w.r.t. this aether, what is its direction and velocity?

The experiment was negative, which confirms that: either assuming that light is carried by an aether or that this aether is global, or that the Earth is moving w.r.t. this aether, is wrong."

Yes, and alternative C was excluded by the fact that the observation held true at different times of the year, so Earth had to move at least at some time w.r.t. the ether, if one existed. Alternative B, i.e., non-globality of the ether was excluded by other experiments, demonstrating, e.g., the Bradley aberration, which requires a global ether, if light is carried by an ether. Hence, the Michelson-Morley experiment indeed showed that alternative A is wrong, i.e., the idea of light being carried by an ether. (Or, as Einstein put it, the idea of an ether having a definite velocity.)

Now that is precisely what electrodynamics tells us as well. We can have electromagnetic waves without an ether and the theory shows us how.

K. Kassner

Does it apply only to *non flat metric* then?

You mean that the flat Minkowski spacetime is not interested by a foliation due to the IRFs and the relativity of simultaneity?

Dear K.Kassner,

The logic sequence is that Stefano answered to Roman who asked him about what folliation was:

SQ: the foliation is the mechanism according to which SR manages to handle time in different reference frames. Space-time is by nature foliated, every IRF has its own time according to SR which implements the Lorentz Transformations in a particular way. This makes every IRF to be totally independent even for time and as such not unifiable under the same "domain" as the Hyperfluid would entail

And you complements the answer of Stefano by

K.K.: Stefano Quattrini "the foliation is the mechanism according to which SR manages to handle time in different reference frames."

No. Foliation is a concept from differential geometry. So it entered the physics of spacetime via general relativity, not special relativity for which no differential geometry is needed.

For me here you don't give a historical reason but some justification that folliation is a concept of differential geometry and you remark explictally:

not special relativity for which no differential geometry is needed.

Perhaps you wanted to speak of hystory of Differential Geometry, General Relativity or other things, but what you said is clear for me. I think that your worthy advice to read with care is also applied to you. Please re-read again what have you said and tell me if you don't put out the SR of Stefano due to the differential geometry argument.

Let me to be a little bit more accurate for employing the concept of foliation, independently of the answer given to K. Kassner. The concept of foliations is quite old in mathematics and not only in differential geometry, in fact what is more important is in algebraic geometry associated to the concept of homotopy. One quite good paper on the general subject could be

https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.bams/1183535509

It is necessary to take care because Wikipedia is not always a good place for finding properly everything

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foliation

Dear K. Kasner,

" Now that is precisely what electrodynamics tells us as well. We can have electromagnetic waves without an ether and the theory shows us how."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think with that phrase you refer to field physics, but remember that with that approach an electric charge "feels" the force applied immediately regardless of the distance, which is not possible if the speed of the wave is c, as it points Thierry we need a medium for that transmission

Stefano Quattrini

@Baldomir:

"Does it apply only to *non flat metric* then?"

No. Foliation applies to flat metrics as well as to non-flat ones. Global foliations are not possible for all non-flat metrics.

"You mean that the flat Minkowski spacetime is not interested by a foliation due to the IRFs and the relativity of simultaneity?"

No. What I meant and still mean is that you don't need differential geometry to do SR and so don't need the concept of foliation in SR. That does not mean that you cannot use it. In fact, if you do SR in accelerated frames, it is useful to use the differential geometric (or differential topologic, for that matter) approach in SR, too. SR is a subensemble of GR, so every tool that may be used in GR can be used in SR, too.

Baldomir: "SQ: the foliation is the mechanism according to which SR manages to handle time in different reference frames. Space-time is by nature foliated, every IRF has its own time according to SR which implements the Lorentz Transformations in a particular way. "

This is a way too narrow-minded answer, moreover, it does not explain the nature of a foliation. Foliation is not a "mechanism", it is a construction of the human mind such as coordinates. Also, foliation has nothing to do per se with IRF (taken to mean "inertial reference frames"). IRFs provide a way to locally foliate spacetime. In the absence of gravity (i.e. in SR) they allow to foliate spacetime even globally. But foliation is not a mechanism provided by SR. Foliation is a concept from differential topology, and since differential geometry was first used in its full glory in GR (and later in SR via specialization from GR), foliation in the physical context was not being invented with SR, but with GR. Maybe, it was used in other areas of physics before, I don't know. Certainly afterwards.

Dear Kassner,

When Stefano wrote "mechanism" I understood that he was using the mathematical foliation of a manifold to be applied at a physical phenomena as can be the election of coordinates by one given observer. It is the same as if he were cutting the spacetime in spacelike hypersurfaces. We know that the foliation by itself is just a mathematical tool! The same happen with its relation with the IRF, I also assumed that Stefano was thinking in relating different observers. This picture is quite usual for the foliation of Minkowski space. Speaking with a little bit more details, that is defined by proper time level hypersurfaces and the foliations of Lorentz manifolds by the simultaneity hypersurfaces that one obtains by integrating a spacelike sub-bundle that is complementary to the line bundle that defines the Lorentz structure. Although locally it is possible to do it, however we cannot do it always globally ()i.e. non triviality topological).

Thus I think that I have understood what Stefano was saying and what I was very surprise that you said that the foliation were only for the differential geometry and therefore not for SR. I also follow thinking that you were so interpretation in the previous posts but I'm very glad to see that you have changed your words going to the last sentences of Stefano.

K. Kassner

>

I did not say infact that is something peculiar of SR , never said it was developed for SR, I simply said that is present in SR through how the IRFs are conceived in Minkowski space. For that reason it is not possible to represent a Minkwoski spacetime as a perfect hyperfluid.

Dear Stefano, you are right. The perfect hyperfluid exists and it is the Time as a Force, which creates constantly our material world. Every material structure is the materialized state of corresponding diapason of the Time. Material (physical) body is a state of maximal concentration of corresponding diapazon of the Time. Material fields (electromagnetic and others) are also materialization of the Time, but the density of field of Time is lesser than for material bodies. If we accept this concept, it means that the Time (non-material, energetic world) is the Cause of material world, which is Consequence. In this world all information sreads momentary and all objects of the Universe are connected momentary.

Information about non-material (energetic world) will be represented in the book Spectral Color Streams of Time. Now this book includes only 2 chapters, where isincluded information about independent researchers of Time (Kozyrev, Shnoll, Morozov,...). Their results show that the Time is real energy, acting on events of material world. The initial notions of energetic world are in the book Basic Elementary Notions on Geopathogeneous Radiations, D. Rabounski, L. Borissova, in Internet (free). One can find the initial 2 chapters of the second book by address: http://www.geocities.ws/borissova

this is another interesting paper...on the right direction

Article Some coordinate transformations in the octonion spaces

Too out in the fringe for me, sorry, juan

the contribution of Abraham in 1909 was in the direction of a hypermedium...

to be noted that also GR is not invariant under LT at a finite distance.

Frankly we do not know and we have not the criteria to judge about it.

Everything is Politics and Camp Division:

• if you express one opinion, then you are being marked as "X"
• if you express a different one, then you are "Y" and so on...

Given my works the relativistic view simply does not work, but due to its adaptation to measurements (only charged particles!) nobody feels the need to replace it.

So, let them continue building giant circular accelerators and accelerate charged particles.

The Hyperfluid from the other side is a very strict assumption...

"Is Nature based on a perfect hyperfluid , an active background, the unique responsible of all the interactions?"

Yes, Maxwell's theory of magnetism is probably right IMO concerning the existence of a physical background aether field. For example, a proposed quantum theory that would involve local hidden variables of a physical background field of some kind (an aether) could be designed to explain QM in a totally different and logical way, explaining the probabilities and statistics involved, etc..

Such a aether would dispose of Special Relativity since a preferred reference frame would exist which could be designated as the gravitational center of the mass of a specified volume of space.

Such a field could explain General Relativity as being the result of pressure differences and flows within such a background field surrounding matter, rather than as being the warping of space surrounding matter, which is a nebulous term like expanding space. It could explain dark matter as flows of this medium within galaxies, clusters, and surrounding galaxies to explain the increased bending of light.

It could be a gravity centered medium which would be the cause and source of gravity, as proposed by Newton in his second edition of Optics, via a pushing gravitational medium, a generally equal pressure and force upon all points in space and upon all matter equal to G. A gravity centered medium would also have been undetectable in the M & M experiment.

Such a medium could readily explain why GR and QM disagree, why their disagreement would be expected as being the difference between the scale of field interactions between the micro and macro realms.

And of course it could be the carrier of EM radiation, as in 19th century physics, the carrier of gravity waves, the source of Zero-Point-Energy and so-called virtual particles.

Such a medium IMO might better explain a great many anomalies and experiments in modern-day physics.

This paper is quite interesting in regards to the need of a background

Adding to the paradox: the accelerated twin is older

>

In conclusions, we stress that in all situations in which the absolute motion may be defined in terms of some invariant global properties of the spacetime, the twin who moves faster with respect to the global standard of rest is younger at the reunion, irrespectively to twins’ accelerations. Could the notion “the twin who moves faste 3 is younger at the reunion” be somehow extended to the classical version of the paradox in the Minkowski spacetime, for example by referring to the starry sky above the twins? This question we should leave unanswered.

This is in line with the thread

Preprint Recovering the Principle of Relativity from the Cosmic Fabri...

Article Lorentz-violating scalar Hamiltonian and the equivalence pri...

Dear Stefano Quattrini,

Modern Gravitational Theory: “Gravitational worlds, they are moving or changing the orbit with their all family members depending on the nuclear of each other”. In this way- The invisible gravitation worlds are black holes of various energy levels, the first one of which is the primordial black hole or Dark energy or Allah/God/Nature of the nuclear fusion of the universe. There have been collective six gravitational divisible of the big bang in future from the primordial black hole or Dark energy or Allah/God. Dark matter: At the first phase or level of the divisible is the black hole of the nuclear fusion of the super clusters of galaxies or black hole named quasar or super massive black hole. The second phase gravitation world of the quasars or super massive black holes in future are of the black hole named pulsar or nuclear fusion of the cluster of galaxies. The third gravitation world of the pulsars in future is of the last normal black holes or nucleus of galaxy or the nuclear fusion of the constellations.

Please see into at https://shahidurrahmansikder.wordpress.com/2018/06/24/the-universe-is-infinitesimal-or-infinite/

this is a thread in line with the necessity of a background..

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_trajectory_of_light_and_the_time_dilation_in_Lorentz_Ether_Theory_and_in_Special_Relativity

If one assumes the aether the Lorentz just a frame of reference, there are no problems to compare it with the Special Relativity of Einstein. The problem arise when you try to identify such medium physically . For instance, how could be possible a physical medium with one elasticity to allow a wave propagation at the velocity of light and simoultaneously to move within it planets, etc....? This was what Einstein's model solved in very ellegant form.

Dear Daniel,

>

the problem arises if it is assumed one preferred /priviledged frame of reference. Same as Lorentz and Poincarè initially thought when they explained the results of the MMX experiment and postulated a medium for light and G waves.

In LET (Lorentz ether theory) space is absolute and period of clocks is changed by their squared speed in the preferred frame of reference, ARF (absolute refrerence frame).

The trajectory of light is a very important topic.

If light is emitted in a very long crystal moving sideways in reference to the ECI frame sufficiently far from earth (gravitation negligible), light gets dragged with it, maintains the transversal component of the motion of the crystal in the ECI frame, stays with the crystal in inertial motion.

Now imagine that there are thousands of crystals going at different speeds sideways from the ECI frame, if we could see light moving inside we would see that each beam of light is dragged away, has a drift.

Although this model is acceptable since light has a mean of propagation which is the crystal, if I get rid of the crystals, SR says that light will behave in the same way and I will see light going sideways if emitted from one body going at constant speed.

What described so far differs substantially from what is postulated by LET, since in that case the beam of lights will stick in their unique propagation medium defining a series of static directions when emitted depending on its initial direction only, and irrispective of the status of motion of the emitter for both speed and direction.

Dear Stefano,

You are right to distinguish both theories in many different forms of interpretations, but it is not more than an interpretation (quite revolutionary and difficult to understand the given by Einstein). Lorentz thought in a classical form and for him c was not a real constant. The mechanism that he employed to justify ILLUTION of seeing it constant. The trick is that there is a mathematical illusion built into Lorentz's moving frame which is deemed unnecessary in Einstein's Relativity. Lorentz needed to use a aether wind for changing the inter-atomic distances while Einstein thought a pure change of the geometry containing the rule or the clock. At the end the only difference is the interpretation and for me the good interpretation is to forget the aether.

Dear Thierry,

Einstein was a full physicist with a clear mind to interpret properly the reality. His paper of "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" is one of the greatest ever written in Physics.

Dear Daniel,

Is it possible for you to share einsteins paper that you have just quoted?

Thanks

Gokaran