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

Download Essay PDF File

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

5 days later

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.

    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

                  Hi snp,

                  I agree that the cosmos likely produces all particles naturally that we struggle to produce at accelerators in such environments as the Earth's upper atmosphere and, as you say, the Sun.

                  I would imagine there are supermassive black holes more massive than those currently discovered in the observable universe - yes.

                  If anything micro black holes shouldn't exist because Hawking Radiation and Planck time may not allow them to form, in much the same way Top Quarks can't form composite particles.

                  Best wishes,

                  Antony

                  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 raised a red flag for me though. You wrote "The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule", and really I couldn't disagree with that more. Out of all the areas of physics, I think cosmology is the one that's done the best to maintain a grasp on reality. I believe this is why, despite being more inclined towards philosophy, as my main interest lies in searching for a clearer and more realistic understanding of nature, I persevered through the "shut up and calculate!/purely hypothetical mathematical derivations leading to descriptions of observable events are all that matter/etc." attitude in modern physics, to a PhD in cosmology.

                  Don't get me wrong: I do think the model is fundamentally flawed, and people are reading too much into the measured parameters; but modellers in every science are prone to doing that, and I think with cosmology the heart's in the right place. Cosmology aims to describe the large-scale structure of our Universe; to realistically account for the redshifts, etc., of distant galaxies that we believe really exist, despite the fact that we're only observing images of them that were shone into space millions of years ago---i.e., so we can't really verify that they're actually there "now", in the cosmological sense of "now".

                  I think the dividing line in this contest is between people who strive for a sensible, realistic, and self-consistent description of nature that would agree with all observations we can make, and those who care more to push the limits of nonsense, to derive a theory of reality that's not inconsistent--i.e. is technically compatible--with observation, despite possibly being nothing like experience. Personally, I'm in the former camp, and while I can appreciate to some extent the sense of scepticism that motivates the latter, I think it's been more damaging than anything, and really defeats the purpose of science and philosophy.

                  The best example I know of is the Macheo-Leibnizian stance that a Universal frame of rest isn't observable, and is therefore to be rejected from the point of view of relativity. This supports the Einsteinian stance on the relativity of simultaneity, and consequently the description of reality as a block universe in which time doesn't really flow. According to the sceptical stance, this isn't strictly inconsistent with experience, and we have no way of proving that all of eternity isn't real as what we think of in our minds as now, right now, each and every second.

                  As I argued in this essay, however, this has often led to a very inconsistent way of thinking, in which all of eternity is actually thought of as existing--i.e. another temporal dimension is snuck into the mix--and the whole thing becomes a muddled mess with even more structure, which is even further from being scientifically defendable than the one bit of structure--the ultimate cosmic rest-frame--that they wanted to deny at the outset. In short, those who argue in this way can't even get their story straight, but that's generally okay by them because it's all a bunch of abstract unobservable gibberish, which they think is a good thing because they anyhow take quantum physics to support the idea that reality really is a bunch of nonsense. In short, its stances like the one that there is no cosmic rest-frame, that lead physicists into rabbit holes where they're happy to play around with math and make a complete mess of things and deny the notion that reality could even possibly make sense.

                  But then, as I argued in my previous essay, the Macheo-Leibnizian stance is actually DEAD WRONG! For the past 80 years we've reasoned from the cosmological data that there is actually a cosmic frame of rest--an absolute rest-frame--and the CMBR provides unprecedented scientific evidence that this is so. The observation of a cosmic rest-frame more than motivates the idea that only the three-dimensional Universe exists, and therefore time actually passes, etc., and the events that occur in the Universe as it exists make up the space-time map of all observables, which we describe with four-dimensional physics.

                  Sorry if this sounds like I've gotten my back up. I really don't agree with a lot of what cosmology is supposed to have established. But I do think cosmologists have done a better job of *striving* for a realistic and sensible theory than physicists in other areas. Mis-attributing the meaning of measured parameters isn't the same as pushing abstract magic as something better than a sensible description. I still think cosmology is, at its heart, a realist's theory.

                  Daryl

                    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

                    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

                      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

                      Dear all,

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

                      see

                      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in

                      or contact me

                      snp.gupta@gmail.com

                      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

                        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'?

                          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

                            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 second sentence states "It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material." This depends on how you define "mental experiment", and according to many definitions, it is not "well known". This is, in fact, one of the ways to ask the question "it from bit?", and hence is the very point of this contest. Your article then argues for a conclusion by assuming that conclusion at the very start. (You repeat this style in your final summary.)

                            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 itself, but only refers to the time as close to immediately after it as one can extrapolate to.

                            You spend the bulk of the essay developing your "Vakradiation" theory, and giving instances how the uniformity of the CMB fits into it, using data from galaxy and interstellar dust observations. To be able to further defend your theory, you would also have to account for the new data (2013) from the Planck satellite which show a region which does not fit into this uniformity (but of course only confirmed when the full data set will be available in 2014). In any case, such a defense in the style which you are presenting it might belong in a professional journal, but one of the stipulations of this contest was that it should be easily readable by a person outside of the field. The middle part of your essay does not fit this criterion, in my opinion.

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

                            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). 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.

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

                            David

                              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

                                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

                                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

                                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

                                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 their initial velocities are to be given as input. The theoretical physics of the model given herein, finds the coordinates, velocities and accelerations of each mass UNIQUELY after every time-step. Here the solutions are based on tensors instead of usual differential and integral equations. This solutions are stable; they don't diverge. There are no singularities or dividing-by-zero errors with these equations. With this model it was found , with uniform mass distribution in space, that masses will colloid but no singularities will result. With non-uniform mass densities, the masses trend to rotate about each other after some time but then they don't colloid. SITA (Simulation of Inter-intra-Galaxy Tautness and Attraction forces) is a simple computer implementable solution of Dynamic Universe Model and other solutions were possible. An arbitrary number of 133 masses were taken in SITA simulations using the same framework in solving various problems.

                                The equations are based upon Euclidian space, real number based coordinate axes, no space-time continuum, non-uniform mass distribution, no imaginary dimensions, and an Engineering style of physics are its basis. This SITA simulation is a calculation method using a mathematical framework, where one inputs sets of values of masses, initial distances and velocities to get various results. Based on these the related computer program achieves a non-collapsing and dynamically balanced set of masses i.e. a universe model without involving a Bigbang or Black-hole singularities. This approach solves problems like Galaxy disk formation, Missing mass problems of stellar and galaxy rotation rates, as well suggesting explanations for the Pioneer anomaly, the New Horizons trajectory calculations and prediction, and Blue shifted Galaxies in Expanding Universe... etc. This Dynamic Universe model, which uses Newtonian physics, is sufficient for explaining most cosmological and solar system phenomena.

                                The Resultant Universal Gravitational Force is calculated for each body for every sequential time-step, included with the three Cartesian dimensions. Conservation of energy, moment, etc, were taken into consideration as shown in the Mathematical formulation. Using exactly the same setup of mathematics and SITA algorithm, using the same number of masses (133), all the results were eventually derived.

                                The Dynamic Universe Model is a mathematical framework of cosmology of N-body calculations, based on classical Physics. In The Dynamic Universe Model all bodies move and keep themselves in dynamic equilibrium with all other bodies depending upon their present positions, velocities and masses. This Dynamic Universe Model is a finite and closed universe model. Here we first theoretically find the Universal Gravitational Force (hereafter it will be referred to as UGF) for each body/ particle in the mathematical formulation section in this book (2010). Then we calculate the resultant UGF vector for each body/ particle on that body at that instant at that position using computer based Simulation of Inter-intra-Galaxy Tautness and Attraction forces (here after let us call this as SITA simulations) which simulate Dynamic universe model. Basically SITA is a calculation method where we can use a calculator or computer, with real observational data using this theoretical simulation system.

                                ....

                                I am requesting you to please feel free to ask any questions.....

                                Best

                                =snp

                                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, 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- -

                                '''''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.''''''

                                Thank you once again.

                                '''''Your second sentence states "It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material." This depends on how you define "mental experiment", and according to many definitions, it is not "well known".'''''

                                Yes I mean to say, God can create matter and physical objects just by thinking in the common sense. Creation by Human is not well known to me. You can give some references.

                                '''''This is, in fact, one of the ways to ask the question "it from bit?", and hence is the very point of this contest. Your article then argues for a conclusion by assuming that conclusion at the very start. (You repeat this style in your final summary.)'''''

                                Yes I explained my way above

                                ( I am sorry, This reply is very lengthy and some flicker happened thrice, I was to repeat preparation of whole whole reply. That's why I am answering this reply in parts)

                                Best

                                =snp