Basudeba Mishra,

The present accepted models are the best so far available. When we say that these are incorrect, we have to propose a better model, and not simply point out the possible errors. We have nothing against the present theories, which are still incomplete. We try to complete it by making changes either very fundamental or just marginal; our aim is not deriding them, though sometimes we may use such words for emphasis.

When a galaxy moves towards us, the radiation from it is blue shifted; if it moves away, it is red-shifted. Again, when a radiation gets cooled, it is red-shifted; if it gets heated, it is blue-shifted. Thus there are two causes for blue/red shift. In an expanding universe, the radiations get cooled. So all radiations, including the ones that are initially blue shifted (due to the direction being towards us) are red-shifted. Naturally we observe some blue-shifted galaxies.

ΛCDM model is the present accepted model of the universe; however, I do not accept that model. My model does not require any dark energy or dark matter. In my model, expansion is due to actual motion of galaxy clusters; the clusters move away from a common center along spiraling paths at increasing speeds. The energy required comes from inside the clusters.

You say that the universe may be spinning, an alternate idea. The question is how far have you developed it. Is it just on the idea level or have you at least completed an overall model of that spinning? I just started from such a simple idea. My model from particles to universe is now complete in all respects in an overall way. I can explain most of the prominent phenomena; I expect the rest will also be explainable. Whether it is correct or not, I leave it to the scientific community to decide.

Jose p Koshy

Parameswara Gupta,

Anyone can submit a paper to arxive; only that you require two other authors to recommend. It is not peer-reviewed. So such papers are not authentic.

It appears that you have not correctly gone through the Wiki page. You need not go to the full length; just the initial summary alone is required. Just read the fourth para. It is reproduced here:

"On June 8, 2012 CERN research director Sergio Bertolucci declared on behalf of the four Gran Sasso teams, including OPERA, that the speed of neutrinos is consistent with that of light. The press release, made from the 25th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics in Kyoto, states that the original OPERA results were wrong, due to equipment failures."

Jose p Koshy

Dear Sir,

Do they know WHAT dark matter is? The answer is they are still searching for it, whether it is ΛCDM or WIMPS or MACHO. No one knows what it is and whether it exists at all. These are all presumptions.

How can "all radiations, including the ones that are initially blue shifted (due to the direction being towards us) are red-shifted"? If it is blue shifted because it is moving towards us in an expanding universe, it can never move away from us and be blue-shifted, unless it moves tangentially. And if something moves away tangentially after moving towards us that hints at spinning universe. We see similar things in the Solar system where planets appear to go away from us to come near at other times. So why should we speculate over a probability when there is an alternative option with credible evidence is available?

In our essay here, we have refuted all hypothetical modern notions on extra-dimensions to give a physical description of 10 dimensions. We should look at correspondence between macro and micro principles instead of treating both separately.

Regards,

basudeba

Basudeva Mishra,

You have missed the point. The red shift is due to two factors: One is due to cooling, the other is due to the direction of motion. When light takes more time to reach us, it gets more cooled, and hence more red-shifted. So distant sources are always red-shifted irrespective of direction, because the blue shift due to direction is always less than the red shift due to cooling. However, for sources that are nearer, the blue shift due to direction can be greater than the red shift due to cooling. So only some that also which are not far off are blue shifted.

When we point out possible errors, we have to be sure what they are saying; for that we have to study their views carefully and arrive at the loop holes in their arguments. The main loophole I point out is that they assume that 'anything correct in mathematics is correct in physics'. A mathematical equation can be interpreted in more than one way. That is more than one physical model will obey the same mathematical equation. In such cases we have to accept the model having physical meaning, and that model should be independently verified to see that agrees with observations.

They do not know what dark matter is. They are trying to clarify it. But unfortunately, their model requires dark matter if their model is to be complete. So I am of the opinion that their direction of search is wrong. That gives us opportunity to propose alternate models. They are also trying to explain both micro and macro using a single model. But till this time they have been unable to do that. So some of them argue that we have to be satisfied with separate theories for micro and macro, though they are still trying.

I am interested in alternate models; that is why I have asked you to what level you have reached in your model? If the universe is spinning, the 'revolving speeds' of the bodies around the center of the universe will increase with distance at the equator, but at the poles the speeds will always be zero, whatever be the distance. So you have to show from the available data, that galaxies at the same distance from the center of the universe have different speeds ranging from zero to the proposed maximum.

Jose P Koshy

18 days later

Dear Jose P. Koshy

I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

Jose, yours is an interesting essay. Two points, one is incidental: Galaxies, solar systems, clusters, planets, etc are all moving relatively, they can all be considered as at not moving.

My perspective on "freewill" is a bit different than yours.

"Freewill is not doing what one wants, but selecting actions from the given options."

There is no room for spontaneity and creativity in that definition. The theory of relativity, for example, was not an option; it was a creative solution.

I invite you to read my essay here. I'd be interested in your take on "spontaneity."

    Dear Jose P. Koshy

    I inform all the participants that use the electronic translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

    Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

    New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

    Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same.

    Sincerely,

    Dizhechko Boris

    Dear Jose p Koshy,

    My papers are published in various journals. I just kept additional copies viXra. Similarly Published papers are also available on that subject super luminal neutrinos....

    Best

    =snp

    Hi Koshy

    It is rare that I have two wow moments while reading a single essay. Your essay certainly proved to be that exception. Accordingly, I rate your essay highly. I didn't know that galaxy clusters moved at one-third the speed of light and how that could be shown to be the outer limit of the universe since there is an increase of 20 times in the rotational speeds of structures like stars, galaxies etc. Also, I hadn't considered that all of mathematics could be boiled down to simple addition. A good insight.

    I agree with you regarding free will being a selection from the available options. That sounds about right to me. I have modeled it as 'nurturing' capacity in my essay on intelligent systems. I am not sure but I think I will differ on 'intelligent beings represent the maximum limit that mathematics can allow in intelligence and free will'. The reason is simple. My essay is premised on the fact that the social system of intelligent beings can also be considered as intelligent, if it is sufficiently sophisticated. Basically, it would have to be a Constitutional Democracy.

    A very nice read. Thanks.

    Regards, Willy

      Willy,

      I have been busy for a few days. Thank you for the comments. Can a social system of intelligent beings become more intelligent than the individuals? I doubt. The more the members, the more will be the 'noise'. Each individual is an optimized 'intelligent system', and creating a system of such systems may be counter-productive. I will be going through your essay.

      Jose P koshy

      James Arnold,

      Thank you for the comments. I have been a little busy and I read your comment today only. Regarding relative motion, what you have pointed out is the present accepted view. I view motion is absolute; absolute motion can be ascertained by measuring G (G is proportional to the speed of the body and so G will be zero for a body at rest. Please not that this is just an alternate proposal, which I claim may be correct).

      Regarding 'freewill', you have taken it too literally. We are unable to do anything that mathematics does not allow. All our actions require a certain amount of time for completion; no instantaneous action is possible, because mathematics does not allow that. 'Spontaneity and creativity' has no place in physics; physics only decides how fast you can process the data; for what purpose you are processing the data is irrelevant. I will be going through your essay.

      Jose P Koshy

      5 days later

      Interesting essay proposing similar self-realization and emergence of concepts, that I also deal with in my essay:

      The Dynamic Laws of Physics (and Universal Gravitation) have varied over time, and even Einstein had already proposed that they still has to evolve:

      ARISTOTLE: F = m.v

      NEWTON: F = m.a

      EINSTEIN. E = m.c2 (*)

      MOND: F = m.a.(A/A0)

      FRACTAL RAINBOW: F = f (scale) = m.a.(scale factor)

      Or better G (Gravity Constant) vary with the scale/distance due to fractal space-time: G = f ( Scale/distance factor)

      (*) This equation does not correspond to the same dynamic concept but has many similarities.

      7 days later

      Dear Jose,

      With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high rating.

      You are one of the few who directly answers the question put by the contest.

      I share your aspiration to seek the truth

      «All physical structures including living organisms are manifestations inside the Cosmos, and cannot exist outside.»

      «Life is an emergent property acquired by mid-level structures formed by atoms.»

      «The temperature difference between the two makes the heat engine work.»

      «In addition to these, the emergent properties acquired by the intermediate structures create both bottom-up and top-down causal factors at each level.»

      I wish you success in the contest.

      Kind regards,

      Vladimir

        Vladimir,

        Thank you for the comments. I have tried to answer the question put forth by FQXI. However, my answer is based on an alternate theory, 'The Finiteness Theory' (proposed by me) the details of which are available at Vixra.org. In my opinion, the main-stream scientists have not tried to identify the top-down causal factor that exists in the universe.

        FQXI offers a platform where alternate ideas can be discussed. I view it as 'participation' on our part, and 'contest' on the part of FQXI.

        Jose P Koshy

        Jose,

        Very interesting, if a little speculative in areas. I agree some parts are reasonable including;

        "..it may be possible that the machines we create acquire self-awareness; but at the end, it may turn out that what we have done is just a duplication of the natural process." and;

        "The Cosmos, .. goes through an infinite loop of pulsations" Which agree with a cyclic cosmology theory I've presented with much consistent evidence, also that we may well be around half way through a cycle. (do ask for links on my string if interested).

        Sadly alternate ideas aren't as well received as they should be, so quite rigorous comprehensive and even and conclusive evidence is required and even then it may not even be looked at!

        I hope you may read mine this year, but in that bracket!

        Good effort. Very Best

        Peter

          Hi dear Jose

          Your essay is very impressive by realistic approaches to problems in the whole. It is seen there clearly definitions of used concepts and categories by their meaning, role and significance, which must to be as mandatory in the scientific - research works, if we really expecting get some valuable results. Unfortunately, such lawful demands become now somewhat forgotten in present formal - mathematical methodology (I mean post classical physics.) Moreover, in your work are presented large circle of very interesting and intriguing questions such, concerning to cosmology, to quantum-classical contradictions etc. Your views on this questions deserve attention and more time that we now has. However, I can decide for myself that author of this work are one deeply thinking person who well imagine the examined subject. The main thing for me it is your critical approach to studied theme.

          I hope my work can serve to your attention and I can hearing some your words in my page.

          Best Regards

            Peter Jackson,

            The present accepted models are the best available, even though incomplete. That is why alternate concepts are not well received by the community. Again that makes the effort for alternate ideas more luring. But unfortunately most of the alternate models are no match for the present ones. Let us try to make our arguments as pereect as possible that no body can ignore it. I will go through your essay. I am interested to know more about your model especially because you claim 'consistent evidence'.

            Jose P Koshy

            George Kirakosyan,

            Thank you for the comment. My approach is classical Newtonian with some corrections. The present approach is mathematics oriented, and the fact that 'physics is not mathematics' is often forgotten. I will go through your essay and will come up with my opinion within a few days.

            Jose P Koshy

            Write a Reply...