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. . . .

5 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #6

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.

    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 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. . . . . .

    You may be correct. But I took Blue shift and red shift as by their standard definition., as Galaxies going away are red-shifted and coming near are blue shifted.

    For further details see my Book: 'SITA: Dynamic Universe Model: Blue Shifted Galaxies Prediction' Published

    About the book:

    Dynamic Universe model is based on hard observed facts and does NOT

    depend on speculation. In this fourth book the simulations predicted the

    existnce of the large number of Blue shifted Galaxies, in an expanding

    universe, in 2004 itself. It was confirmed by by Hubble Space Teliscope

    (HST) observations in the year 2009. This prediction process is clearly shown

    in the output pictures formed from this Model from old and new

    simulations. These pictures depict the three dimensional orbit formations.

    An orbit formation means some Galaxies are coming near (Blue shifted) and

    some are going away (Red shifted). This book goes on two main lines. First

    is the main line of thinking, to show mathematically that there will be lots

    and lots of blue shifted Galaxies mathematically. To support this concept

    the question what are the possible blue shifted Galaxies is answered

    further. We find that quasars are blue shifted galaxies. The second line of

    thinking goes with this finding, that the Quasars are blue shifted

    galaxies.Forrest Noble (Pan Theory) in his foreword said "over 7,000

    blueshifted galaxies have been discovered extending beyond the Local

    Group, first predicted by Mr.Gupta.

    978-3-8484-1382-9

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/09/4th-book-sita-dynamic-universe-model.html

    You can see my web site,

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

    Scroll down and you will find 'Dynamic Universe model for beginners' after news

    "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.

      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

      7 days later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #10

      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.

      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

      25 days later

      Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

      It from bit - where are bit come from?

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

        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.

        7 days later

        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

          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

          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

          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

          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

          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. What are they thinking? It's like some mass hysteria of 'phase locked' group reliance on numbers and beliefs rather than mental powers.

          You cut through that very well, also addressing it in their terms, numerically. I also agree, as you may see from my last two essays, that I agree totally with your statement;

          "radiation at first gets partially scattered and partially gets absorbed, later the remaining part only passes through. All these are non-linear processes, and are very difficult to approximate. Incidental energy is always higher, and only a portion of it gets pass through."

          What I'm glad of is that you didn't rely too much on your full 'Dynamic Universe Model' as I believe you may be "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". (another northern expression). To believe that 'matter' is the only form of energy is wrong and may be a failure of the imagination, indeed against the 'owt from nowt' principle, so what is termed 'dark energy' shouldn't be dismissed as mainstream dismisses things. It is also perhaps arrogant to assume we can detect all matter. We cannot of course directly detect plasma or condensed fermion pairs, so that may rightly be called 'dark' matter.

          Lastly. I have falsified Cartesian co-ordinates as inadequate for describing the temporal evolution (dynamics) of real non-zero bodies. In fact that is where mainstream science leaves the rails. Points and lines are not real and thus cannot 'move'. I think you'd find your otherwise soundly based model far more powerful if examining and shedding those assumptions.

          But you did not go into or rely on those so I can't downgrade your essay or it's value. Now if only you could write it in fully "mainstream language" with fewer obvious departures it may then also be taken seriously by those who don't already agree with it!

          Thank you also for your kind comments on my own essay.

          Well done, and best of luck

          Peter

            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

              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 impossible.

              - - - Up north' in England there a common saying; -You don't get owt for nowt.- meaning you can't get anything from nothing. There 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. What are they thinking? It's like some mass hysteria of phase locked group reliance on numbers and beliefs rather than mental powers.

              You cut through that very well, also addressing it in their terms, numerically. I also agree, as you may see from my last two essays, that I agree totally with your statement- - -

              Thank you once again for such a comment

              You are very appropriate to say- - - - - - radiation at first gets partially scattered and partially gets absorbed, later the remaining part only passes through. All these are non-linear processes, and are very difficult to approximate. Incidental energy is always higher, and only a portion of it gets pass through - - - The same thing I also did.

              - - - What I'm glad of is that you didn't rely too much on your full 'Dynamic Universe Model' as I believe you may be -throwing out the baby with the bathwater-. (another northern expression). To believe that matter is the only form of energy is wrong and may be a failure of the imagination, indeed against the owt from nowt principle, so what is termed dark energy should not be dismissed as mainstream dismisses things. - - -

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

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

              http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/11/fundamental-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

              - - - It is also perhaps arrogant to assume we can detect all matter. We cannot of course directly detect plasma or condensed fermion pairs, so that may rightly be called 'dark' matter- - -

              You are correct, we are not in the centre of universe. We can not see all matter. What ever our telescopes see is the matter that we can see.

              - - - Lastly. I have falsified Cartesian co-ordinates as inadequate for describing the temporal evolution (dynamics) of real non-zero bodies. In fact that is where mainstream science leaves the rails. Points and lines are not real and thus cannot move. I think you'd find your otherwise soundly based model far more powerful if examining and shedding those assumptions- - -

              Cartesian co-ordinates did not give any problem. I used them upto 10^55 meters, Two three times larger than our visible universe. I can not recollect the numbers exactly. We can discuss the problems you faced. No problem.

              - - - But you did not go into or rely on those so I can't downgrade your essay or it's value. Now if only you could write it in fully "mainstream language" with fewer obvious departures it may then also be taken seriously by those who don't already agree with it!- - - I fight with mainstream philosophy, in many points. You remove NO from the above list of 20 points it will become mainstream, its speculations and imaginations.

              Thank you once again and best wishes to you. . .

              best

              =snp

              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. . .

              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!

                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