Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background by Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

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

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

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 Paul Borrill

Best wishes sir,

=snp

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