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

Dear Dr. Satyavarapu NP Gupta

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/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 you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

Good luck and good cheers!

Than Tin

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

    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

    10 days later

    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.

      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

      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.

        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 - - - - -, Followed by my answer. We can discuss later also after the FQXi contest is over on any point, if you feel it is needed. Your words:

        - - - - -In all honesty, I am very puzzled by your ideas. Here are my comments: - - - - -

        Thank you sir, I am also answering all these comments with all the honesty. I hope , I did not make any conceptual mistakes. We can discuss all these to any further detail without any problem. There are many situations, as the time is less I am pointing out a few observations below.

        - - - - -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. - - - - -

        Standard model cannot explain the existence of 30 to 35% blue shifted Galaxies and about 20% non shifted Galaxies. It considers only red-shifted Galaxies ignoring all the other types of Galaxies. How will anyone explain existence of blue shifted Galaxies in a totally expanding universe? I feel it is a chaotic situation in astrophysics.

        You are very correct about SINGULARITIES. These are mathematical only. They don't have any physical significance. Still all the educated scientific community is breaking their heads on this. They could have used their valuable brain power for more constructive usage.

        You may please have a look at for further questions on Bigbang :

        http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/07/anymore-evidence-for-big-bang.html

        - - - - -2) Please, can your explain the correct value of the light's deviation by the Sun, - - - - -

        Yes sir, I will try. . .

        50 years of VLBI research is one example

        Please look:

        http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2011/11/simple-question-to-all-vlbi-solar.html

        - - - - -the gravitational time dilation and frequency shift, - - - - -

        You can assume light waves as Photons with mass and explain them in Dynamic Universe Model.

        - - - - - the gravitational time delay, - - - - -

        Again I will tell about the VLBI, many scientists in the VLBI field say we have to consider the Gravitation of other Planets also in addition to Sun. Which we cannot do with present science.

        I presented paper on this in COSPAR Mysore as an Half an Hour TALK

        - - - - - the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, - - - - -

        Dynamic Universe Model can explain this situation. But Pioneer anomaly cannot be explained ny Standard model!

        - - - - - the Equivalence Principle - - - - -

        Equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is valid in Dynamic universe model.

        - - - - -and the geodesic motion with NO change Newton's gravitation laws? - - - - -

        In Dynamic universe model Space is space and time is time. All the motions, even those, which are not possible to be explained by GR can be explained by Dynamic universe model. One Example is Gravitational Catapult, which cannot be explained by GR.

        - - - - -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. - - - - -

        If you are thorough with COBE, WMAP etc satellites and their design /working, We can discuss in detail sir, there no problem.

        What actually measured was Star and Galaxy light and it is approximating to Blackbody radiation. How can you deny that fact. Bigbang generated CMB is yet to be detected.

        We can sit in any open forum.

        Thank you

        Best

        =snp

        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.

          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

            Thanks for the reply snp,

            Only just seen this.

            Best wishes,

            Antony

            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

              • [deleted]

              • Post #110

              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

              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

              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

              7 days later

              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

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

                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

                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

                Write a Reply...