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


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

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

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 8/16/13 at 9:06am UTC, wrote I replied him today.... ======================================== from: ...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 8/16/13 at 8:57am UTC, wrote Again Forrest added to the above with another mail yesterday.... ...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 8/15/13 at 10:48am UTC, wrote Dear All, The Author of Pan theory Mr Forrest sent a comment on this...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 8/8/13 at 10:31am UTC, wrote Dear Margriet, Thank you for nice explanation. Please tell me if there...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 8/8/13 at 8:35am UTC, wrote Dear Paul Borrill Best wishes sir, =snp

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 8/8/13 at 8:32am UTC, wrote Dear Margriet, Thank you for your encouraging comments on my essay. I am...

Anonymous: on 8/8/13 at 8:29am UTC, wrote Dear Margriet, Thank you for your encouraging comments on my essay. I am...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 22:00pm UTC, wrote Dear Satyavarapu, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Perhaps I can word that more clearly. The human observer's self generated..." in Breaking the Universe's...

Georgina Woodward: "The effective reference frame in perceptual judgments of motion direction...." in Breaking the Universe's...

Jonathan Dickau: "Sorry again... I should have read more of the linked attachment before..." in If the world ended...

Jonathan Dickau: "Sorry, Some of these arguments appear vacuous, or depend on hidden..." in If the world ended...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Joe Fisher: "Robert Lawrence Kuhn ℅ Closer To Truth November 17, 2018 Ref: Get out..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Zimmer man: "Excellent and useful information, thanks for the list. androdumpper apk..." in Neutrino mysteries,...

Edwin Knox: "The genuine Earth had a genuine VISIBLE surface for many years previously..." in Superhuman: Book Review...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

Constructing a Theory of Life
An all-encompassing framework of physics could help to explain the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, and free will.

Usurping Quantum Theory
The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.


FQXi FORUM
November 20, 2018

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background by Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 26, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Essay Abstract

“Material objects are more fundamental” is being proposed in this paper; or in other words “IT from Bit” is true. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. There were double slit experiments by John Wheeler which show some mental dependencies on electron behaviour, but still he did not produce material from information. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material. Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. As evidence the Bigbang based Cosmologies show the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), as relics of Bigbang. In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. Pictures by COBE and WMAP satellites show variation in CMB intensities in 10-4 scales. In Bigbang based Cosmology, these pictures were discussed as though they are the starting information for the formation of future Galaxies. This information is the counter part of “IT from Bit or Bit from IT” in Cosmology. This paper shows a way that we can exclude Cosmology from this concept.

Author Bio

Born in 1954, Studied B.Tech(Elec) JNTU College of Engg, Anantapur in 1976, started carrier Bhilai Steel Plant in 1977 and presently as AGM(C&IT) there. After seeing the chaotic situation in N-body problem field, and singularities like Blackhole & Bigbang, a simple solution tried which can be tested by any person who has a PC, with NO change Newton’s gravitation laws. CV is available at : http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/cv.html

Downloa
d Essay PDF File


Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 16:13 GMT
One real Universe can only be occurring eternally. There was never an explosive commencement.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 29, 2013 @ 02:55 GMT
Dear Joe,

Thank you for such nice comment and I feel it is an appreciation!

You are correct. . . . There was never an explosive commencement. . . . .

I also say, there is only one universe which has many masses. Each mass move according to the resultant of all mutual attraction forces on that mass in the universe. They form orbits. This way they form singularity free non-collapsing single Universe. In this process there are many Galaxies go away and many come near. You can say there are there are 32% blue shifted Galaxies. And about 20% of Galaxies do not have any shift. Can we neglect that many Galaxies just to support Bigbang Based Cosmologies?????

Remaining Galaxies are Red shifted. Hubble space telescope found as many as 80 thousand Blue shifted Galaxies. Many quasars can be proved blue shifted. How will you explain all these in a totally expanding universe. . . . .?

Please see for further info. . . . .

Blue shifted Galaxies Mathematical prediction

Ratio of Blue Shifted Dalaxies

Quasar 3c273 is Blue shifted

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
Gupta, to be honest I did find it difficult to follow your "Vakradiation" argumentation. I will try to study it again and give it the time it deserves. Nevertheless , I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT
Anton, you are correct. Thank you for remembering last few sentences, which I am reproducing below.

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . . .

In addition I want to add,

Imagination is good. But all the imaginations are not real. For example we use imaginary numbers (i) in math, as a square root of a negative number. Can an Engineer construct an imaginary axis perpendicular to real x or y or z or time axes? I can not imagine how such thing can be done in reality ? We all should do a real hard thinking about all these. . . .

Bookmark and Share



Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Well presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data.

Blue and red shift have got do with the gravitational potential at every point in space. The presence of matter in intergalactic space will decide whether the light is blue or red shifted.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 06:27 GMT
Francis ,

Your comments. . . . . . . Well presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data. . . . . . .

Thank you for such nice supporting comments. Your comments are true. Bigbang generated CMB was never measured till today.

And your comments. . . . . . . Blue and red shift have got do...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT
"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

If It=material objects and Bit=their info content, then the converse of this statement is true.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT
Dear Robert Bennett,

To your statement. . . . . . . . . If It=material objects and Bit=their info content, then the converse of this statement is true. . . . . . .

I want to ask,

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. The CMB as we see in microwave region looks similar to distant Galaxy large scale structure as it depends on star and Galaxy radiation. That way we can explain WMAP CMB sources. The picture of Universe through WMAP eye is an image of observations in few microwave bands of the radiation emitted by stars and Galaxies.

There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

How will you say material objects are fundamental except by logical derivations? Does your words supported by scientific experiments that produced material from its description?

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share


Robert Bennett replied on May. 22, 2013 @ 02:25 GMT
snp,

"Does your words supported by scientific experiments that produced material from its description?"

Not from its description... from its existence!

The information in 2 gamma rays is sufficient to create matter... koino-anti-particle pairs.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 22, 2013 @ 06:33 GMT
Dear Robert Bennett,

Your earlier statement. . . . . If It=material objects and Bit=their info content, then the converse of this statement is true. . . . .

Your present statement. . . . . Not from its description-- from its existence!

The information in 2 gamma rays is sufficient to create matter... koino-anti-particle pairs.. . . . .



These statements are contradicting each other, I mean to say Gamma rays also come into category of Materials only. Just the information content of Gamma rays is not sufficient to produce material, what do you say?

Best

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

It from bit - where are bit come from?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
Dear Hoang cao Hai,

Thank you very much for asking.

And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?— in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on.

The Egg or Hen question cannot be answered once again, as there are many interchangeable forms of energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. All these forms are dynamically change from one to another depending on situation.

I saw your abstract at:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

You are correct. Nothing is eternal in the universe. Everything is temporary and changes its form dynamically.That includes matter , astronomical bodies, energy etc.

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

I noticed your abstract says - “Material objects are more fundamental” is being proposed in this paper; or in other words “IT from Bit”. Shouldn't that be "Bit from It"?

Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

Please take a look at my essay if you get a chance. Although I conclude differently in the essay, after reading your essay, I think perhaps I should also decide that reality is more fundamental than information. At the very least, I would not say that information can be more fundamental than reality itself.

Best wishes for the competition,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 17:02 GMT
Dear Antony Ryan,

Thank you very much for supporting my arguments --a mere description of material properties does not produce material--. I mean to say, whatever the manner one describes the material with words, mental thoughts, using information technology or computers, his descriptions will not produce material bits or atoms. This explanation can give information describing the material bits only and nothing more.

Here I used words - -IT- - for: - -Information technology- - and - -Bit- - for : --a piece of material or a bit of material- - . . . .

Thank you very much once again for your pleasant comments- - I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable- - . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .



I want to bring it to your notice one more thing. How well one does the description of the material mathematically or otherwise, there will be some undefined region like a blackhole which will create problem. All our educated energies and efforts will be lost or wasted in search of such singularities.

I sincerely feel that energies of our educated intelligentsia should be directed towards experimental results. Non-realistic and speculative things are to be avoided. . . . . . . . .

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 01:46 GMT
My pleasure Satyavarapu,

I agree in experimental results, that is why results at the likes of the LHC are worthy of the massive investment. Perhaps micro black holes will be confirmed or ruled out...

But the crucial thing about Black holes in the context of this contest is that they swallow information...

Hopefully you won't assess my essay as too speculative, since it is based around nature's code.

Anyway, as I said - excellent way to approach the contest. Well done!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 08:31 GMT
My dear Antony,

Thank you once again for your excellent words- - - Anyway, as I said - excellent way to approach the contest. Well done! - - -. . .

So you accept there are no bigger blackholes in the sky as observed in astronomy? You mean to say only possibilities left are micro blackholes . . . . ?

Regarding LHC, one put more energy, one will get more particles. One can call them God particles, Micro blackholes etc., depending on the properties observed during their very short lives. Probably core of the SUN have all these particles! ? !

I am more interested in open and live discussions rather than ratings; please do not worry and I do not do such things. . . . Let FQXi bother about such things!

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 03:46 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 08:09 GMT
Dear Gupta,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 11:48 GMT
Dear Satyav,

Excellent essay, pertinent well argued and quantified, though the 'thinking' is more my speciality.

'Up north' in England there's a common saying; "You don't get owt for nowt." meaning you can't get anything from nothing. There's also another one which seems to apply well to many mainstream theorists; "there's nowt so queer as folk". Which I think needs no translation....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 17:01 GMT
Thank you very much Peter,

( I am showing your words with - - - =snp)

You took lot of time and wrote a beautiful comment. Started with - - - Excellent essay, pertinent well argued and quantified, - - - Thank you once again.

You are not only a thinker very much knowledgeable something like Encyclopaedia Britannica. You have excellent knowledge in many fields, which is humanly...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 16:55 GMT
We form a picture about that reality in our mind. So when we die, this picture will be completely erased. It does not mean, after ones death, the universe ceases to exist. The universe exists but the person observing it may not exist. That is the reality.

Great argument. I totally agree, but I am troubled that advocates of the anthropic principle seems to give the macro and the micro world the same behavioral characteristics in their arguments.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 17:21 GMT
Thank you Jim,

Thank you very much for such nice words of appreciation.

Micro and macro worlds may not have same behavioural characteristics. But It may be of interest to you to have a look at: .COMBINING MICRO AND MACRO WORLDS IN DYNAMIC UNIVERSE MODEL| EXPLAINS VLBI OBSERVATIONS

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012
/07/39th-cospar-scientific-assembly-2012.html

The oral presented by me at COSPAR assembly . . .

If you are further interested I will send details, contact me snp.gupta@gmail.com. . .

Bookmark and Share



Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 22:30 GMT
Author Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:13 GMT



http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1770



After reading Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta's essay (Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background), where I noticed the abstract says - "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I realised I'd concluded differently in my essay.

I think perhaps reality can be more fundamental than information. At the very least, I would not say that information is likely more fundamental than reality itself, but then that's the beauty of this competition, it encourages shared ideas!

Bookmark and Share


Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 22:33 GMT
Thank you very much Antony,

Thank you for remembering my essay.

All the reality, all the information about the matter by our 6 senses ( mind is another sense)are stored as stored as pictures in our mind. This picture we will share with other human beings when we live. What we transfer via the communication to others is INFORMATION, It is never a matter. We may hand ove a physical object such as a pen to others. That is only matter. That not information. The description about the pen is information.

Hence by just information we can not create matter.....

I also request you to have a look at Dynamic universe model:

- - - Dark enrgy , dark matter are calculation mistakes.

Please see, and discuss on any point, you feel not satisfied. . . .

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/11/fundamen


tal-questions-addressed-by.html

Fundamental questions addressed by Dynamic Universe Model

This Model is new Cosmological model fundamentally and mathematically different from Bigbang, Steady state model etc. I am giving below its Foundational points, Present Day unsolved problems, which can’t be solved by other prominent models, New Satellite Mass reduction technology and publications (Four Books published).

Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model:

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

best

=snp.gupta@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:45 GMT
Thanks for the reply snp,

Only just seen this.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 13:56 GMT
Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 17:03 GMT



http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1820

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

Thanks for your post. Your essay sounds interesting to me, as I think we’ll see eye to eye on some fundamental issues. I hope you do enjoy my essay when you read it!

There was one particular statement you made that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 13:58 GMT
Dear Datyl,

Thank you very much for an informative post.

I say Thank God , I could provoke anger in some one at least.!!!

I will answer all your questions, and please read the following in this post...

You remove all the "NO"s you will get main stream cosmology. If have any differences on any point we can have eye to eye.

after this FQXi also you can contact me by my id snp.gupta@gmail.com

- - - Dark enrgy , dark matter are calculation mistakes that rules to start with,What do you say?????

Please see, and discuss on any point, you feel not satisfied. . . .

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/11/fundamen


tal-questions-addressed-by.html

Fundamental questions addressed by Dynamic Universe Model

This Model is new Cosmological model fundamentally and mathematically different from Bigbang, Steady state model etc. I am giving below its Foundational points, Present Day unsolved problems, which can’t be solved by other prominent models, New Satellite Mass reduction technology and publications (Four Books published).

Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model:

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Bookmark and Share



Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 13:59 GMT
Author Daryl Janzen wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 20:34 GMT





Dear Eckard,

Following up on my first response to your comment on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 04:41 GMT

I thought you might be interested to discuss the following: consider a situation in which two gunslingers about to duel with laser pistols stand at either end of a train and there’s some gunpowder at the middle that gets lit by a referee. Someone else watches the whole thing from a field outside, and from his perspective the train is moving to the right.

Do the gunslingers see the signal at the same time, or not? According to which perspective? If no, is it still a fair fight (assuming each stands his ground)? How do you reconcile this with there being one common time?

Cheers,

Daryl

Bookmark and Share


Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT
Dear Daryl,

Did you get solution to the above problem?

Please try Dynamic Universe Model with some numerical values, give initial values of velocities, take gravitation into consideration( because you can not experiment in ISOLATION). complete your numerical experiment.

later try changing values of masses and initial values of velocities....

Calculate with different setups and compare your results, if you have done a physical experiment.

I sincerely feel it is better to do experiment physically, or numerically instead of breaking your head on just logic. This way you will solve your problem faster.....

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 14:05 GMT
Dear all,

Dynamic universe model can solve a number of problems...

see

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in

or contact me

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share



Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 21:50 GMT
Dear SNP,

interesting collection of experimental results. I agree that every theory must be based on experiments. Reeality is much more important.

All the best for you

Good luck for the contest

Torsten

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 18:06 GMT
Thank you Maluga,

Thank you for your nice complements,,, That's true,"every theory must be based on experiments. Reeality is much more important."



Best wishes to you also

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Lev Goldfarb wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 23:53 GMT
Dear SNP,

You say that "it" cannot be created or changed by "bit".

How would you explain, then, the famous entanglement process, where "its" can be changed without the *direct* involvement of any other "its'?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 18:49 GMT
Dear Goldfarb

I mean to say, whatever the manner one describes the material or matter with words, mental thoughts, using information technology or computers, his descriptions will not produce matar bits or atoms. This explanation can give information describing the material bits only and nothing more.

Here I used words - -IT- - for: - -Information technology- - and - -Bit- - for : --a piece of material or a bit of material- - . . . .

----

Can you please explain in some other words**** the famous entanglement process, where "its" can be changed without the *direct* involvement of any other "its"*****

What is the entanglement?

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share


Lev Goldfarb replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 01:04 GMT
OK, let me clarify it a bit more. ;-)

As you know, when one interacts with one of the entangled particles one is *instantaneously*--and hence not via "it", which cannot propagate with the speed higher than c--interacting with the the others.

Again, I take it to be a form of interaction actualized by some kind of informational means, which I see as a disproof of your claim that "it" cannot be modified by "bit".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 17:11 GMT
Dear Goldfarb,

Thank you for the explanation. And in your words ''''Again, I take it to be a form of interaction actualized by some kind of informational means, which I see as a disproof of your claim that "it" cannot be modified by "bit". ''''

You are referring to my IT ( Information technology) or your It ( A piece of matter) I was confused...

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 05:16 GMT
Dear SNP,

I enjoyed reading your essay and also went to your website - you have invested a tremendous amount of work in your ideas. In your N-body model do you mean to describe all the universal effects of particle physics, cosmology and things like radiation - or is it just for a Newtonian treatment of a limited problem in dynamics?

Concerning your present essay you obviously know what you are doing - I will only ask one technical detail: In your analysis of radiation from a disc or spherical source don't you need to account for the effects of diffraction? Your analysis treats geometrical rays but the results may be affected one way or another with diffraction included. (If the ratio between the radius and the wavelength is very small diffraction will be minimal.)

I wish you all the very best in your work and in the contest

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 19:26 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your blessing""""" I enjoyed reading your essay and also went to your website - you have invested a tremendous amount of work in your ideas."""""

Your question""""" In your N-body model do you mean to describe all the universal effects of particle physics, cosmology and things like radiation - or is it just for a Newtonian treatment of a limited problem in dynamics? """""

Many problems I tried to solve using Dynamic Universe Model, in Cosmology, Newtonian Physics, Unsolved Solar system problems, VLBI etc.

You may try other problems and tell me your results...

It is not limited to "Newtonian treatment of a limited problem in dynamics"

And your another question""""" Concerning your present essay you obviously know what you are doing - I will only ask one technical detail: In your analysis of radiation from a disc or spherical source don't you need to account for the effects of diffraction? Your analysis treats geometrical rays but the results may be affected one way or another with diffraction included. (If the ratio between the radius and the wavelength is very small diffraction will be minimal.)"""""

Thank you once again for such good question. Dish size( Diameter) can be 0.2 to 50 Metres. I don't think your limitation will be applicable here. This diffraction will cause some more averaging effect on the measurement of radiation. What do you say.

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 01:53 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu

Diffraction spreads the wavefront and makes sharp focusing impossible. Whether it applies to your calculations or not depends on whether you are interested in local intensity (which varies according to whether the wave is tightly focused or not) or simple the total amount of energy which does not change because of the law of conservation of energy.

Good luck!

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David M Reid wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 08:27 GMT
Dear SNP

In your abstract you start with "'Material objects are more fundamental' is being proposed in this paper; or in other words 'IT from Bit' is true."

Oops. The first clause implies "Bit from It", not the other way around. (The mistake is repeated in your conclusion.)But that I presume is a small lapse; the rest of your essay makes it clear which one you meant.

Your...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 22:09 GMT
Part 1

Dear David,

Thank you very much for a beautiful enquiry. ( I am putting ''''' for your words at the beginning and end.)

'''''In your abstract you start with "'Material objects are more fundamental' is being proposed in this paper; or in other words 'IT from Bit' is true."''''

I mean to say, whatever the manner one describes the material or matter with words,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 22:38 GMT
Part 2

Dear David,

Thank you once again for the time you spent on my work for preparing your elaborate quarry.

''''''In your first paragraph you state the creation ex nihilo to be a stock item in cosmology. However, no present physical theory about the Big Bang every ventures into more than speculation (e.g., collisions between branes) about the instance of the Big Bang...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 23:20 GMT
Part 3 ( Final)

Dear David,

''''In your essay you mention the Dynamic Universe Model as an aside; in your replies to posts you frequently refer back to this theory'''''

This essay is not related to Dynamic Universe model. It is independently derived from fundamentals. This essay is totally independent of the dynamic universe model theory. When someone questions I go into that theory.... Did you find any relation between these two?

'''''I noted in your references that you refer to your own articles on this theory. May I assume that this is the same theory which is outlined by the article, which predates your works, to be found at http://www.sci.fi/~suntola/DU_library/2007_Introduction_to_D


U.pdf ?'''''

No No No, that link is some new theory. Mine is Dynamic Universe Model, which is an singularity free N-body problem solution.

'''''As you say, this theory has a lot of potential. However, it concentrates primarily on trying to reformulate general relativity (if I am reading it correctly).'''''

Yes, Cosmology, Solar system dynamics, VLBI explanations, many other problems, (you may also give some new problems) etc...



''''' Wheeler's assertion was a bold one because of the difficulties presented by quantum phenomena and theory, not because of general relativity. Hence I am not sure that the Dynamic Universe Model is entirely relevant to this debate.'''''

Here I am discussing about CMB, if somebody asks about Dynamic Universe Model, I will have to reply. I think 'Wheeler's assertion' is not the only thing in this contest. There are a wide verity of papers.

'''''In any case your essay has prompted some lively discussion, which is good. Good luck in your further research.'''''

Thank you once again, You can ask me your questions even after this FQXi contest is over no problem. I will answer them.

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 11:52 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. You say a few words about Dynamic Universe Model, and you say it properly. Your explanation of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is resonable.

Regards

Ziki

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 20:18 GMT
Thank you once again Ziki,

Thank you for your appreciation...

A few words about Dynamic Universe Model..............

Please have a look at:

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in

Dynamic Universe Model of Cosmology is a singularity free N-body solution. It uses Newton’s law of Gravitation without any modification. The initial coordinates of each mass with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 11:02 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,

To be honest, I had some problems to understand your proposed concept Vakradiation. And your paper looks more like a technical note than an essay for the broad audience, may be you should rewrite it with graphs, so that the understanding of the reader may improve. On the other hand, as a non-expert in cosmology, I cannot judge its deep interest.

Best regards,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 14:06 GMT
Dear Michel,

Thank you for asking,

I define this word "VAKRADIATION" as radiation received per unit area from a distant source in space per unit time over all frequencies.

This term is something similar to heat flux or thermal flux. These are common terms used in measurement of solar radiation. If I use these terms directly, people will take that as 'Solar Radiation' only, they will not take them as TOTAL STAR or GALAXY RADIATION in all Frequencies.

I am defining this new term because, the terms "thermal flux" or "heat flux", are commonly used in conjunction with solar heat that is received per unit area per second on earth. This defines a similar unit for Star and Galaxy radiation at earth.

....

Thank you very much for your comments "And your paper looks more like a technical note than an essay for the broad audience,". I will do that. I will prepare it in such a way that a Discovery channel viewer can understand. I will publish in some common forum, I will send a copy to you also.

I hope it is not condition for FQXi essay, in that case they would have written that there should not be any equations in the essay.

But I request you to please let me know all your problems and I will explain...

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 15:14 GMT
Dear Michal,

Thank you once again for the questions you asked me on my essay. If you visit the FQXi page ,( at the beginning of the page)

http://fqxi.org/community/essay

........................
.....................

I. GOALS & INTENT

The goals of the Foundational Questions Institute's Essay Contest (the "Contest") are to:

^ Encourage and support rigorous, innovative, and influential thinking about foundational questions in physics and cosmology;

.............................................

They used a word 'innovative', that may mean they want more fundamental thinking and may not be a report on current research prepared for discovery channel viewers...

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 13:35 GMT
Dear Dr. Gupta,

I believe it has been convincingly established in cosmology that the perfect blackbody thermal spectrum of the CMB cannot be produced by thermalization of starlight. For a convincing discussion you may want to see the review article by Peebles et al. in Nature 352, 769 (1991).

Also, I think you intend to conclude `bit from it’, not the other way round, judging from your arguments and from what you discuss.

With best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 16:52 GMT
Resp Prof Tejinder singh sab,

1. Thank you very much for such nice fundamental questions you asked, which nobody doubted here. I will be very glad to answer. Thank you for your rating to my essay, which came down to 3.6.

I am just a common man, nobody will bother for a man working against Mainstream and I am not a PhD. Being a prof in such institute researching in fundamentals like FQXi, You are confused by question of a common man.

So you know the background of my paper and I will ask you few direct and straight questions. . .

a. How much starlight is allowed in EACH measurement of Background Microwave Radiation as measured by WMAP or COBE satellites?

b. What are the measures they have taken to compensate or for subtraction of starlight from that point measurement?

c. Once they have measured only starlight concluded it is perfect Blackbody radiation why it was announced other way round. ( Here your question becomes redundant)

2. I mean to say, whatever the manner one describes the material or matter with words, mental thoughts, using information technology or computers, his descriptions will not produce matar bits or atoms. This explanation can give information describing the material bits only and nothing more.

Here I used words - -IT- - for: - -Information technology- - and - -Bit- - for : --a piece of material or a bit of material- - . . . .

Hope this will answer query sir,

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 17:00 GMT
Resp Prof Tejinder singh sab,

1. Thank you very much for such nice fundamental questions you asked, which nobody doubted here. I will be very glad to answer. Thank you for your rating to my essay, which came down to 3.6.

I am just a common man, nobody will bother for a man working against Mainstream and I am not a PhD. Being a prof in such institute researching in fundamentals like FQXi, You are confused by question of a common man.

So you know the background of my paper and I will ask you few direct and straight questions. . .

a. How much starlight is allowed in EACH measurement of Background Microwave Radiation as measured by WMAP or COBE satellites?

b. What are the measures they have taken to compensate or for subtraction of starlight from that point measurement?

c. Once they have measured only starlight concluded it is perfect Blackbody radiation why it was announced other way round. ( Here your question becomes redundant)

2. I mean to say, whatever the manner one describes the material or matter with words, mental thoughts, using information technology or computers, his descriptions will not produce matar bits or atoms. This explanation can give information describing the material bits only and nothing more.

Here I used words - -IT- - for: - -Information technology- - and - -Bit- - for : --a piece of material or a bit of material- - . . . .

Hope this will answer query sir,

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share


Member Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 12:37 GMT
Dear Gupta Sir,

Greetings. I humbly request that we not discuss ratings. I am afraid you are assuming that I have already rated your essay, and furthermore, that I brought down its rating, or that I intend to rate it at all.

I am a theorist, not an experimentalist, and I do not have the expertise to comment on data analysis or technical instrumental details of CMB experiments. However, so many different CMB experiments starting 1965, including ground based and balloon borne experiments, and satellites, all say that the CMB spectrum is black body. It would be surprising if they were to be all wrong and yet agree with each other. Perhaps you may like to consult experts at IUCAA, Pune on this subject.

All that I was saying in my previous post was that calculations show that it is not possible to thermalize starlight, and make a perfect blackbody spectrum, given the properties of the inter-stellar medium.

Regarding your points a. b. c. above it is definitely true that galactic foreground is subtracted before arriving at the CMB spectrum. Moreover, it is significant that the galaxy is a disk - so that most points where CMB is measured are not affected by the starlight. For instance, you may like to see the papers

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9811358

http://arxiv.org/abs/13
03.5088

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5089

http://arxiv.org/abs/as
tro-ph/0301077

If these works are already known to you then I apologize.

With kind regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joachim J. Wlodarz wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

I've read your essay, not without difficulties, because I'm a theoretician, dealing more with quantum theory than astrophysical measurements :-)

Nevertheless, I can see from the essay and the discussion above that you seem to be allergic to any "imaginary" concepts, including imaginary numbers, which are nothing more than a convenient way to denote 90 deg rotations ( i^2 = -1 means simply that two consecutive counterclockwise 90 deg. rotations are equivalent to one 180 deg. conterclockwise rotation).

Going back to our "It from Bit" discussion, it does not mean, at least in my opinion, a creation of matter from mental experiments. It is rather about the influence that _getting_information_ (i.e. a measurement) may have on the state of an "element of reality", including it's emergence, as it is observed in various experiments involving quantum entanglement.

You wrote:" ... we study the relation between Information and reality about CMB in this paper." A question arises, what information about reality is _encoded_in_ CMB, or it is rather the information encoded in our _models_of reality ?

Another thing, which is problematic for me, is the use of Boltzmann-Stefan law in combination with "radiation in all frequencies" in your discussion. Isn't it prone to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" problem ?

One more thing, there is a mention about your Dynamic Universe Model, based on flat Cartesian coordinates in 3D space and (global?) linear time. I'm afraid that such a model is rather problematic in view of the _observed_ properties of electromagnetic radiation.

Best Regards,

-Joachim.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 23:28 GMT
Dear Joachim,

Thank you very much for your interest in my essay and for your time spent on this essay. These are good questions. I will be putting '''''' before your words. Next will be my answers.



'''''I've read your essay, not without difficulties, because I'm a theoretician, dealing more with quantum theory than astrophysical measurements...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 04:19 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

I read your essay. To be honest a lot of things I do not agree, but not right.

I see that we do not have the same idea about what may be the information. For me, and I hope for a lot of other information that is all that exists, all that is reality, everything is an object or phenomenon.

And I would like to have your opinion and so to get a better view.

best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 20:29 GMT
Dear amazigh mabrouk hannou,

Thank you for reading my essay and starting a nice discussion.

You said - - - - - I see that we do not have the same idea about what may be the information. For me, and I hope for a lot of other information that is all that exists, all that is reality, everything is an object or phenomenon.- - - - -

In my opinion, we have physical 5 senses and a sixth sense called mind. We form pictures of all the real things around us in our mind from these senses. Mind interprets these real things around us for forming these pictures. All these information will be lost when we die.

We invented the communication to transfer these pictures to fellow humans.

This communication uses information which is nothing but description of our mental picture.

But you say information is real, how it is real?

Is there any other information other than what I said?

Please reply in this thread so that I will get a communication from FQXi, and I can reply you, , , ,



best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share


eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 00:10 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

I did not make a mistake : we do not have the same idea of the word « information ». For me, any object is information. The word « information » is taken here in the large and extended sens, in the physical sense of the term and not in its abstract, symbolic and limited shape.

We define the word according to the conception which we have of the Nature and the reality. And not according to the common opinion, or its definition in a standard dictionary.

This is how I see the word « information » and I have my reasons which are directly related to a particular concept of the Universe.

If you design an object in your computer and you print it in three dimensions.

The object works, as if it was made at the factory. The symbolic information that you transformed into a physical information, is this real or an invention ?

You are free to have a different idea of the word « information », but I have another opinion.

With all my respects.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 08:46 GMT
Dear SNP Gupta,

The theme up on which your essay is based is having deep rooted meaning and you have aptly said that it is ‘IT from Bit’. I am in complete agreement with you when you say that CMB radiation is fully misinterpreted in confirming the ‘big-bang’ hypothesis. You have also given good reasons for that and this also follows from the large scale ‘isotropy’ of the universe according to general relativity. Misinterpreting scientific data from satellites has plagued the current trend in science and regarding this your essay is an eye opener.

I also like you to go through my essay and post your comments.

Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 22:23 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for your very nice comments on my essay. I have gone through your nice essay also, and conceptually your is similar to mine. I am giving account of both below. Your concluding words

- - - - Although Information & Reality (Bit & It) have physical origin, without mind they are in themselves empty and blind. Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit- - - -

That is very nice, and in my opinion, we have physical 5 senses and a sixth sense called mind. We form pictures of all the real things around us in our mind from these senses. Mind interprets these real things around us for forming these pictures. All these information will be lost when we die.

We invented the communication to transfer these pictures to fellow humans.

This communication uses information which is nothing but description of our mental picture.

- - - -

Your comments - - - - The theme up on which your essay is based is having deep rooted meaning and you have aptly said that it is ‘IT from Bit’ - - - -

Here I mean to say, whatever the manner one describes the material or matter with words, mental thoughts, using information technology or computers, his descriptions will not produce matar bits or atoms. This explanation can give information describing the material bits only and nothing more.

Here I used words - -IT- - for: - -Information technology- - and - -Bit- - for : --a piece of material or a bit of material- -

Please reply in my thread so that I will get a communication from FQXi, and I can reply you. .

best

=snp

Bookmark and Share


Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 09:28 GMT
Dear SNP Gupta,

Thanks for your fine analysis of my essay and for your kind compliments and in the final analysis, in treating It as primary to Bit, we both agree. The meaning that you have given to ‘IT from Bit’ simply substantiates that. My e- mail address is, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in

All the best in the essay contest.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


ioannis hadjidakis wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 10:11 GMT
Dear Gupta,

A nice essay full of experimental data. However, the resemblance to the theme of this contest seems to me rather obscure.

Let me simplify the whole thing with the following simple experiment (Did I misunderstood something?):

Let us have a box full of water. Each set of molecules within it has its own temperature according to its molecules' kinetic energy. Hence, they emit the appropriate radiation. If we set a Vakradiation detector somewhere in this box - obviously - we will detect the VAKR... radiation that appears to be uniform and emitted from any set of molecules we like. However, the cause of molecules' kinetic energy is not explained in any way by these observations.

This is the meaning (among many others) of Big Bang (BB) theories that it tries to explain "background" energy by saying that it came from a "superhot" singularity. Nobody seriously supports the idea that CMB came straight from BB but it came to us (no mater how) as a consequence of the BB. The observed fluctuations of CMB are caused by certain stars' or galaxies' procedures but the overall CMB - by any evidence - was caused by BB.

During last contest I posed a major worry about our conception beyond our galaxy.

"... Milky way (our galaxy) is even more interesting as its Schwarzschild radius is approx. 3*10^25 m (mass = 2*10^42 kg) while its radius is about 5*10^20 m. ..."

I would like your opinion on this as it is substantially related to your essay.

Best wishes

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 02:57 GMT
Dear Ioannis hadjidakis,

Thank you very much for your interest in my essay and for your time spent on this essay. These are good questions. I will be putting - - - - - before your words. Next will be my answers.

- - - - -A nice essay full of experimental data. However, the resemblance to the theme of this contest seems to me rather obscure. - - - - -

Thank you very much once...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



ioannis hadjidakis wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 05:10 GMT
Dear Gupta,

According to my knowledge none experiment has ever shown the existence of matter. We only deduce its existence by the experiments just like BB.

I am sorry I had not misunderstood in the very first place.

good luck to the contest

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 15:32 GMT
Thank you Ioannis,

thank you for the post.

I did not follow exactly what you mean by your words ''''''''''' According to my knowledge none experiment has ever shown the existence of matter. We only deduce its existence by the experiments just like BB.'''''''''''''

Probably you mean to say, matter is not produced in any experiment, is it not? Yes, you are correct!

and....

BB is a mathematical singularity it is not an experiment.

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Chris Granger wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 20:40 GMT
SNP,

Thanks for presenting this essay, it was quite interesting. Although perhaps a bit off topic for this particular contest, I nevertheless appreciate approaches which attempt to examine questions from experimental perspectives.

You might be aware that others have also proposed that the CMBR could be a result of blackbody radiation from matter in the universe. That is, if you...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 20:45 GMT
Part 1

Dear Chris,

Thank you very much for your interest in my essay and for your time spent on this essay. These are very good questions.

Please note that I will be putting - - - - - before your words. Next will be my answers.

- - - - -Thanks for presenting this essay, it was quite interesting. - - - - -

Thank you very much for your appreciation once again.

- - - - - Although perhaps a bit off topic for this particular contest, I nevertheless appreciate approaches which attempt to examine questions from experimental perspectives. - - - - -

This not off topic please. I think you got my point, instead of wasting educated brain power in very dry half philosophical TOPICS, we should divert them into more practical and experimental results.

- - - - - You might be aware that others have also proposed that the CMBR could be a result of blackbody radiation from matter in the universe. - - - - -

I know. When there is NO mathematical singularity like Bigbang or Blackhole, why such radiation will come? I checked for 100’s of areas in the sky. And the measurements are matching with observations. If you have data for any particular area in the sky, we can work-out together and match and see results. You should be interested in practical experimenting, that’s it.

best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share


Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 20:51 GMT
Part 2

Dear Chris,

- - - - - That is, if you allow for some mechanism whereby light can experience redshift with distance irrespective of cosmic expansion (of which there have been some arguments) one could posit that such presents an alternative resolution, in the same manner as cosmic expansion. To show this you would need an experiment demonstrating that the redshift occurs regardless of whether cosmic expansion exists, and further that the magnitude of redshift is sufficient to the observed intensity. - - - - -

IF WANT TO KNOW, AND WANT TO COME OUT OT YOUR FEELINGS THAT OUR IS A TOTALLY EXPANDING UNIVERSE, I WILL TELL YOU SOME OF THE TODAY’S OBSERVATIONS IN THE SKY. THERE ARE ALMOST 35% BLUE SHIFTED GALAXIES, 20 % GALAXIES WHICH DON’T SHOW ANY SHIFT AT ALL AND REMAINING ARE REDSHIFTED.

You can have a look at my books…( SEE THE 4TH BOOK)

http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=882633903957483
4163&pli=1#editor/target=page;pageID=3475395384539870110

http
://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/09/discussion-w
ith-forrest-noble-on-new.html

NOW I WILL ASK YOU HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN ABOUT THE BLUE SHIFTED AND NON-SHIFTED GALAXIES? JUST IGNORE THEM, IS IT NOT…?



- - - - - Without a more detailed review, I'm not yet certain that your particular experiment could suitably differentiate between possible redshift mechanisms and/or anisotropy mechanisms. - - - - -

I REQUEST YOU OR SOME OF YOUR FRIENDS GO FOR A DETAILED REVIEW AND CONTACT ME FOR ALL YOUR PROBLEMS

- - - - - Such a theory suggests that measured WMAP anisotropies result from non-inflationary effects, including redshift effects unrelated to cosmic expansion, of which have not yet been demonstrated as matching the measured data, at least at present, as far as I'm currently aware. - - - - -

Yes I know, please check my data and match with measured data, as I said earlier.

best

=snp

Bookmark and Share


Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 21:29 GMT
Part3

Dear Chris,

Final part . . . .

- - - - -Also, it appears that from your essay you are considering the ISM/IGM to be the major sources of aliasing when it comes to uniformity in the CMB as measured from Earth; you state that, in your estimation, large anisotropies would be measurable outside of galaxies which suggests yet another resolution mechanism. - - - -...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear Guptaji,

I would like to rate your fine essay with a very high score and I want to know whether you have rated mine. So, please, reply to my above e-mail.

All the best in the essay contest.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 01:12 GMT
Dear Sreenath Garu,

I did not rate your essay earlier. I am very much in need of Good ratings. People are down rating me! Congratulations! I gave 9 to you. Earlier your score is 3.9 with 29 ratings, now it jumped to 4.0 with 30 ratings. Please give me your e mail ID, I will send some my books published in Germany.

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share


Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 04:58 GMT
Dear Guptaji,

Thank you very much for rating my essay. I have rated your essay with full honors, that is, 10/10 so that your average rating is 3.5 with 34 ratings although I know that you have rated me with 8 score. You need some more rating like this to move up on the list. My e-mail address is, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in. please give me your e-mail ID also.

All the best in the essay contest.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 05:10 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you very much for your help. I don't know How many will support me.

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Jeff Baugher wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 05:12 GMT
snp,

Your essay is out of my knowledge area, but I do comprehend that you are having a disagreement on what the CMB is showing. I can't give you any good feedback due to the limitations of my knowledge at the moment, but as it is an area in which I will need to beef up on in the future, I look forward to being able to come back to your essay to read a different argument.

Thanks

Jeff Baugher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 07:57 GMT
Thank you Jeff,

It is simple essay. it is not difficult for people of your calibre. I hope you will find some time to go thro my essay and give your comments. Give me your mail Id, so that I can send my books published in Germany... and.....

I request you give some good rating...

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 01:48 GMT
Dear author. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 20:26 GMT
Resp Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your post on my thread again, but I replied you on 30June.

I am posing it on your essay, so that you can see and give your comments...

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 03:16 GMT
Dear Sri Gupta

Of course I know of your kind reading of my essay - I meant about rating it or not, as the case my be.

With all best wishes

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 03:19 GMT
Thank you Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 01:20 GMT
Dear All,

It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

iSeries always yields two sub semi...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 19:03 GMT
Resp Sridattadev

Thank you for the nice post.

What are the advantages of this system?

Thank you for the SAMA TATVA vishleshana..

It is a real good philosophical thought...

I believe in God, No problem. God is not space time. God is not any mathematical singularity undefined.

About a chair or table or any thing we form a picture in our mind. This picture is information in our mind. It will die with the person at his death. We communicate this picture with each other. We can not just create matter from this information itself.

Please discuss with me further...

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share


sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Satya,

Information is also a form of energy. We as human sentient beings might be incapable of harnessing that energy and manifesting it into material reality at will, but that does not mean it cannot be done. Nature does this seamlessly using the information coded in the DNA and converting energy from the sun in to matter through photosynthesis. That is why I put plants at a higher consciousness than the average human being, for being conscious of knowing how to convert energy (information) to matter. GOD is Generator Organizer Destroyer of all that there is.

Regarding the usage of the above system....it is how the nature uses mathematics for its functioning.

I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.



Its also interesting to see the singularity is in the base seed of zero and how it is all pervasive all through out the DNA structure in the attached image. I have been telling that I is that nothing which dwells in everything and this DNA structure seems to prove that notion. Singularity is right with in the duality. Absolute is right with in the relativity. This proves that both of these states of singularity and duality are interconnected and are the source of life.

Love,

Sridattadev.

attachments: 5_iDNASeries.bmp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 23:44 GMT
Resp Sridattadev,

Thank you very much for such fast reply. I hope I did not get you mad at me with my arguments. My ratings reduced suddenly! Here I am giving a reply point to point after your words quoted with - - - - -. I hope to have a live discussion with you.

- - - - - Information is also a form of energy. We as human sentient beings might be incapable of harnessing that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 11:58 GMT
Dear Satya and All,

Enjoy the absolute truth of the self. Thou art that.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 18:38 GMT
Resp Sridattadev

Thank you for the SAMA TATVA vishleshana..

It is a real good philosophical thought...

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 02:38 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,

As per string-matter continuum scenario of universe with Homeomorphic Segmental-fluctuations, CMBR is not from the relics of Big Bang, whereas the nature of time is discrete and cyclic in reference with a linear holarchial time, in that information continuum is descriptive.

Thus in this paradigm, information is the transfer of string-matter segment with eigen-rotational energy, whereas it is transfer of energy alone in particle scenario. This ascribes a different wave mechanics in that there is no wave particle duality, instead a duel wave frequency is expressional with spiral propagation of sting-segments, in that Stefan–Boltzmann law is descriptive, that indicates your findings on CMBR is applicable.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 14:57 GMT
Thank you Jayakar

For your blessings. You are correct in the particle scenario.

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 04:50 GMT
Dear Dr.Satyavarapu SNP,

It's now my turn to comment on your essay. Apologizes, because, I'm a very slow reader compare to you; who has been commented ever first on my thread.

However, I think that basically we are very very much on the same boat of basic logic about digital nature. Because you have started with the words “Material objects are more fundamental”. Probably, you can remember in my Inference part of the essay: "..to such a digital observer (like us), the nature would be always perceivably digital...the digital nature or ‘it’, in Eq. (23), is nothing but a product of (5+5) two inverse sets of CIPs or ‘bit’s, e.g. (m.s.t) & (v.su.tu)...", where both "bit" and "It" as digital messages have material origins.

So I expect some rating from you since both of us are pointing towards the same basic logic about digital nature. I am also going to rate you 8.

With my best regards

Dipak

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 14:23 GMT
Dear Dipak,

Thank you for a good analysis. I already gave good ratings to you. I sent a personal mail also to you, I hope good ratings from you...

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 08:37 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,

For me it is logical: all galaxies have cycles in their movement. Thus, some depart, and some approaching. And direction can be changed, according to us . That is cyclicity like in solar system. If Universe is not in Cycle where cyclicity cease (at Galaxies, or at Clasters, Filaments)? Where? I ask you as a cosmologist.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 17:48 GMT
Dear Branko,

Thank you for asking me such a good question.

Your question is very relevant when we are in the centre of the universe. You remember, the discussions; Earth is at the centre. Sun is not at the centre of universe. Sun is not even at the centre of Milky way.

Our observable universe depends on power of telescopes. The higher the power of new telescopes, the higher will the observable radius.

When we are at the centre of the universe, then we will see the part of the universe go up one side and universe will go down another side. As our observations are limited, we can see only part movements.

Probably we are at off centre of universe. We have to do large scale n-body simulations.

Hence at present with the observed data , it is difficult to say, where exactly the cyclicity cease (at Galaxies, or at Clusters, Filaments). . . .

Thanks to FQXi for providing us such discussion forum.

What do you say?

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 17:59 GMT
Dear Branko,

Thank you for asking me such a good question.

Your question is very relevant when we are in the centre of the universe. You remember, the discussions; Earth is at the centre. Sun is not at the centre of universe. Sun is not even at the centre of Milky way.

Our observable universe depends on power of telescopes. The higher the power of new telescopes, the higher will the observable radius.

When we are at the centre of the universe, then we will see the part of the universe go up one side and universe will go down another side. As our observations are limited, we can see only part movements.

Probably we are at off centre of universe. We have to do large scale n-body simulations.

Hence at present with the observed data , it is difficult to say, where exactly the cyclicity cease (at Galaxies, or at Clusters, Filaments). . . .

Thanks to FQXi for providing us such discussion forum.

What do you say?

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 03:41 GMT
Dear Dr. Satyavarapu NP Gupta

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 07:59 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,

I am convinced that the cyclicity, ceases (nor in clusters, nor in filaments). Even the whole the Universe is cyclical. There is no logical reason to stop cyclicity at any level of the organization of matter. The question of the center of the universe raises the question of shape the universe. Presentation the Universe on National Geographic TV in form of a sphere for me is more ridiculous than fear of Columbus sailors, what happens when they reach the end of the flat earth. There is no privileged center, nor the edge of the Universe.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 18:38 GMT
Dear Branko

Thank you once again for such a nice question. I am showing your words with - - - - Followed is my answer.

- - - - - I am convinced that the cyclicity, ceases (nor in clusters, nor in filaments). Even the whole the Universe is cyclical. There is no logical reason to stop cyclicity at any level of the organization of matter. - - - - -

You are correct

- - - - - The question of the center of the universe raises the question of shape the universe. - - - - -

Shape of the universe is an important question, we have to have a detailed research on that direction.

- - - - - Presentation the Universe on National Geographic TV in form of a sphere for me is more ridiculous than fear of Columbus sailors, what happens when they reach the end of the flat earth. - - - - -

Yes sir, very correct. Only research and exploration with courage of Columbus had conquered the fear of the sailors.

- - - - - There is no privileged center, nor the edge of the Universe.

- - - - -

Uniform density is another mythical concept, which caused a bigger havoc.

Centre and edge of the universe are some of the important questions, we have to have a detailed research on that direction too.

I want to add:

There are lots images for the Galaxies. There are many reasons for the images. Gravitational bending, Multiple bending of light, Subbarao’s Paths, Gravitational lensing are to name a few. The images look so real, that we may think them to be real Galaxies. There are abrasions and distortions in the images of Galaxies to identify them. If you can strikeout all the images of Galaxies, and see only Galaxies, then we will get real picture and shape of Universe.

Please have a look at Dynamic Universe Model blog and some of the above posts by me:

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Again I want to thank FQXi, for giving us a forum with a wide area for doing such nice discussions.

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:26 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 07:31 GMT
Dear HANNOU,

Thank you for the informative post,

So you feel you can produce matter from mere information either from memory of computer or from information available in human mind?

best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 10:02 GMT
Dear SNP,

As I promised in my Essay page I have read your Essay. I have also read the statement in your bio claiming that "After seeing the chaotic situation in N-body problem field, and singularities like Blackhole & Bigbang, a simple solution tried which can be tested by any person who has a PC, with NO change Newton’s gravitation laws" and your claims in this web-page. In all honesty, Iam very puzzled by your ideas. Here are my comments:

1) I do not see chaos in the physically existing Astrophysical and Macro-physical Universe's Standard Model. There are some problems (for example I do not like the concept of singularity) but the Model is also intriguing and highly predictive.

2) Please, can your explain the correct value of the light's deviation by the Sun, the gravitational time dilation and frequency shift, the gravitational time delay, the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, the Equivalence Principle and the geodesic motion with NO change Newton's gravitation laws?

3) I also agree with the opinion by Prof. Tejinder Pal Singh, i.e. that it has been convincingly established in cosmology that the perfect blackbody thermal spectrum of the CMB cannot be produced by thermalization of starlight.

I am going to rate your Essay. Good luck in the contest,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 13:06 GMT
Resp Prof Christian Corda,

Thank you for all the time and trouble you have taken for this.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to clear up such confusions and puzzling situations. And . . .

Thank you once again for quoting my words from the blog and reading the blog.

I am answering all your questions / comments one by one indicating your words with - - - - -,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 14:48 GMT
Hello Satyavarapu ! from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder !

You commented on my essay 'INFORMATION AT LAST !! back July 11 & I'm only just getting around to reading yours. I'm so glad I did as I find myself agreeing with you. I do not understand the details of your maths & graphs but I also reject the standard cosmological interpretations of most if not quite all of the phenomena occurring in our universe including the standard interpretation of the CMBR.

Although I arrived at my 'dissident' position independently, recently I discovered 'The Electric Universe' web site which is also found on 'Thunderbolts.org' in which the much stronger electromagnetic force & well known plasma phenomena are utilised to help interpret what our telescopes show us is going on out there in the universe. They too insist that the standard interpretation of the CMBR of incorrect. They too reject the idea of a Big Bang & of black holes.

I think you might find their perspective interesting & corroborative of your own findings.

Thank you for your work & for your comments on my essay

Margriet.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 08:29 GMT
Dear Margriet,

Thank you for your encouraging comments on my essay. I am concentrating on mainly Macro world,. But your essay on Electric Universe is really good.

I also want to have good corroboration with you. Thanks FQXi, who gave an opportunity to meet with you this way.

My Id is snp.gupta@gmail.com, Hope you will contact me, there later also.

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 08:32 GMT
Dear Margriet,

Thank you for your encouraging comments on my essay. I am concentrating on mainly Macro world,. But your essay on Electric Universe is really good.

I also want to have good corroboration with you. Thanks FQXi, who gave an opportunity to meet with you this way.

My Id is snp.gupta@gmail.com, Hope you will contact me, there later also.

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 15:18 GMT
Oh ! Margriet again - !

I forgot to say that in my essay I too not only stress the very large distinction between mere computing which can be easily accomplished with 'bits', & 'real thinking' which is an entirely different phenomenon & one which can be accomplished only via the aid of 'real information' which I claim is 'geometrical objects' which particular entities are not digits & are, rather, analogue phenomena. I also claim that any good & proper understanding of geometric objects - or PATTERNS enable us to come to a very much better understanding of our own thinking processes. Please see my essay !!!

Margiet

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 10:31 GMT
Dear Margriet,

Thank you for nice explanation.

Please tell me if there any difference in data in a computer and data (same)in a human mind or you can say in our thinking?

Can matter be created from that data?

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:00 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 08:35 GMT
Dear Paul Borrill

Best wishes sir,

=snp

Bookmark and Share



Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 10:48 GMT
Dear All,

The Author of Pan theory Mr Forrest sent a comment on this essay, As I was travelling I could not post it here earlier. Thanks to FQXi again for publishing this essay.

Best

=snp

======================================

from: Forrest Forrest

to: Snp Gupta



date: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:54 AM

subject: Re: CMB in our Universe

I read your paper, related discussions and links. I've never read any good arguments why the microwave background cannot come from a number or mass sources such very copious distant galaxies, other galaxies, from cold matter in intergalactic space, from galactic hydrogen, primarily in our own galaxy. Yes, when I first studied the evidence I thought the consistency of the constant temperature seemed peculiar, but not as peculiar as the interpretation that the CMB was a remnant of a BB event or an event soon thereafter :) , and that it has been totally redshifted by expanding space.

Distant galaxy observations today, although interpreted via the BB model, still show no certain indication that any aspect of the BB model is correct.

regards, Forrest

==================================

Bookmark and Share


Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Aug. 16, 2013 @ 08:57 GMT
Again Forrest added to the above with another mail yesterday....

====================================

from: Forrest Forrest

to: Snp Gupta

date: Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:22 PM

subject: Re: CMB in our Universe

Hi Snp,

I read your CMB paper. Interesting, and I think a number of valid points. I too think the CMB is from starlight in our galaxy as well as distant galaxies.

One point for your information: The SST did not propose creation of matter ex-nihilo (contrary to popular opinion). It proposed matter creation from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) either in open space, or from the ZPF surrounding the centers of galaxies. This is totally different from ex-nihilo. In the second version of the SS theory they pushed for the idea of the creation of matter in the centers of galaxies. I'm not a proponent of the SS models, or of an expanding universe, but I do agree with the new creation of matter in the center of galaxies, while at the same time ordinary matter is getting smaller at the same rate so that the density of the universe would remain about the same over all observable eons of time (according to my model). This accordingly explains the observed galactic redshift of light. :)

best regards, Forrest

Bookmark and Share


Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Aug. 16, 2013 @ 09:06 GMT
I replied him today....

========================================

from: Snp Gupta

to: Forrest Forrest

date: Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:18 PM

subject: Re: CMB in our Universe

Thank you very much Forrest for your interest in this subject.

Thank you for supporting me that you are also thinking that the observed CMB is from starlight.

I am putting your present mail also as a post in FQXi forum with my reply as another post.

You can see and post your further replies directly at

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1607

Regarding SST ( Steady State theory) it will be start of a good discussion.

So you are feeling Creation of matter is required in the Universe? This creation can be ex-nihilo as in Bigbang theory or creation from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) as proposed in SST.

And you even support - - - - -

I do agree with the new creation of matter in the center of galaxies, while at the same time ordinary matter is getting smaller at the same rate so that the density of the universe would remain about the same over all observable eons of time (according to my model). This accordingly explains the observed galactic red-shift of light. :) - - - - - in your own words.

I want to ask a straight question, What about BLUE-SHIFTED Galaxies? According to present observations, about 33% are Blue-shifted Galaxies. and about 20% Galaxies dont show any shift and remaining are Red-shifted.

So you are asking every one to neglect all the other 53% of Galaxies which doesn't show any Red-shift ?

will you think it is correct?

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share



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.