Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

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

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

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

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

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

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

With all my respects.

Dear Ioannis hadjidakis,

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

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

Thank you very much once again for good comments.

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

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

This is NOT an micro sensor( smaller) but is an all radiation detection sensor ( Like a Microwave dish antenna used in satellites). Kinetic energy of the molecules is not a point measuring criteria. This case is not applicable.

You may have a look into these two points asked others in the ABOVE posts, which are reproduced in the following

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

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.

2. Joachim J. Wlodarz wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 16:48 GMT

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

Thank you for nice question once again. See Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Jean

s_law

In 1900 Max Planck empirically obtained an expression for black-body radiation expressed in terms of wavelength in Planck's law. The Planck law does not suffer from an ultraviolet catastrophe, and agrees well with the experimental data, but its full significance (which ultimately led to quantum theory) was only appreciated several years later. Since, then in the limit of very high temperatures or long wavelengths, the term in the exponential becomes small. . . .

Hence I feel for our ranges, there will not be any error!

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

None of the experiments conducted till today detected any BB created radiation. Everybody measured only star / galaxy radiation. This is what I am showing here. There is no overall CMB except these radiation.

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

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

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

This is not directly or indirectly related to this essay. Because these are no Blackholes in the Dynamic Universe model, Blackholes are mathematical singularities. In this essay on CMB also, we don't use the concept of Blackholes.

Any further questions are welcome...

Best

=snp

Dear Gupta,

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

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

good luck to the contest

Dear SNP Gupta,

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

All the best in the essay contest.

Sreenath

Thank you Ioannis,

thank you for the post.

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

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

and....

BB is a mathematical singularity it is not an experiment.

Best Regards

=snp

SNP,

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

You might be aware that others have also proposed that the CMBR could be a result of blackbody radiation from matter in the universe. That is, if you allow for some mechanism whereby light can experience redshift with distance irrespective of cosmic expansion (of which there have been some arguments) one could posit that such presents an alternative resolution, in the same manner as cosmic expansion. To show this you would need an experiment demonstrating that the redshift occurs regardless of whether cosmic expansion exists, and further that the magnitude of redshift is sufficient to the observed intensity.

Without a more detailed review, I'm not yet certain that your particular experiment could suitably differentiate between possible redshift mechanisms and/or anisotropy mechanisms. Such a theory suggests that measured WMAP anisotropies result from non-inflationary effects, including redshift effects unrelated to cosmic expansion, of which have not yet been demonstrated as matching the measured data, at least at present, as far as I'm currently aware.

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

The suggestion of a non-expanding universe often suggests one with infinite age and thus suggests additional considerations for resolving Olber's paradox; I did not encounter these items in your essay.

Another issue that I didn't come across in your essay is with respect to the conversion of matter to radiation in stellar sources, in that the radiation of the universe would continue to increase until thermal equilibrium were reached by cosmic plasma. Based on the CMB measurements and your essay, the expectation then would be that the universe is far from reaching equilibrium, and may in fact never reach that state (which may be reasonable). Perhaps you have addressed this in your other papers referenced, but it doesn't appear to be covered here.

Thanks again for presenting this. Remember that experiment, not consensus, is the bedrock of the scientific method; you don't need to be mainstream to be correct, but you do need the experimental evidence.

Chris

    Part 1

    Dear Chris,

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

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

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

    Thank you very much for your appreciation once again.

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

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

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

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

    best

    =snp

    snp.gupta@gmail.com

    Part 2

    Dear Chris,

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

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

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

    http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8826339039574834163&pli=1#editor/target=page;pageID=3475395384539870110

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

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

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

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

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

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

    best

    =snp

    Part3

    Dear Chris,

    Final part . . . .

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

    Yes, thank you, That is correct.

    - - - - -The suggestion of a non-expanding universe often suggests one with infinite age and thus suggests additional considerations for resolving Olbers paradox; I did not encounter these items in your essay. - - - - -

    Very good question, I am not suggesting infinitely spacious universe, which causes Olbers paradox, but age of the universe can be infinite which will not cause Olbers paradox.

    - - - - -Another issue that I didn't come across in your essay is with respect to the conversion of matter to radiation in stellar sources, in that the radiation of the universe would continue to increase until thermal equilibrium were reached by cosmic plasma. Based on the CMB measurements and your essay, the expectation then would be that the universe is far from reaching equilibrium, and may in fact never reach that state (which may be reasonable). Perhaps you have addressed this in your other papers referenced, but it doesn't appear to be covered here. - - - - -

    Another, Very good question sir,

    Please have a look in Dynamic Universe Model blog. .

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

    - - - - - Thanks again for presenting this. Remember that experiment, not consensus, is the bedrock of the scientific method; you don't need to be mainstream to be correct, but you do need the experimental evidence. - - - - -

    Thank you for your blessings. Experimental evidence is already available. But thorough experiments and verifications are needed. . .

    I will be replying your post in your thread separately.

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

    best

    =snp

    SNP,

    Regarding blue-shifted galaxies... Though I will check your links, the data I am familiar with suggests that nearly all galaxies are red-shifted, with the exception of very few. In essence, out of the many billions and billions of galaxies surveyed, there are less than 10,000 that have been found blue-shifted and the explanations for those blue-shifts are quite mundane, most notably that the vast majority of these are nearby and would be expected to demonstrate velocity dispersions which would readily account for the blue-shift. The trivial percentage is obviously nowhere near what we would expect from a random distribution if we were to ignore redshift; as such, I don't think you can make that particular case with the current data. To duplicate the CMB character without expansion, I think you're going to need an alternative red-shift explanation, as I noted earlier.

    Chris

    P.S. I checked the links on your site; one works, one doesn't. However, you present data suggesting ~7000 blue-shifted galaxies out of ~558,000 in the survey which is less than 1.3% with blue-shift and those mostly appear in quite nearby regions (so that is even a high bias). The only way you can get the 31% (or thereabouts) you've quoted is if all quasars were somehow considered blue-shifted galaxies, but no quasar has yet been shown as blue-shifted (at least as far as I'm aware) in terms of its systemic body (that is, the low ionization lines when not including outflow jets as isolated components). Given that, I'm not sure how you can reconcile the data. You would need to prove that all quasars are actually blue-shifted, meaning that every quasar analysis to date has been in error; you would need some very concrete evidence which could incontrovertibly refute all the existing analysis in order to do that.

    Dear Guptaji,

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

    All the best in the essay contest.

    Sreenath

      Dear Sreenath Garu,

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

      Best

      =snp

      snp.gupta@gmail.com

      Dear Guptaji,

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

      All the best in the essay contest.

      Sreenath

      Dear Sreenath,

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

      Best

      =snp

      snp,

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

      Thanks

      Jeff Baugher

        Thank you Jeff,

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

        I request you give some good rating...

        Best

        =snp

        Dear Satyavarapu

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

        Good luck!

        Vladimir

        Resp Dear Vladimir,

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

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

        Best

        =snp

        Dear Sri Gupta

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

        With all best wishes

        Vladimir