Frequency shifting in electromagnetic radiation near gravitating masses in Dynamic Universe Model by Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

Thank you for the mail Prof George

Thank you for the wonderful words on my essay... Lets workout some ideas further...

I am giving maximum appreciation to you for your essay ... Best wishes for the essay...

=snp

Respected prof Fedorov,

Thank you for the nice words...on Dynamic Universe Model...Your essay is also very good sir....

I am giving maximum appreciation you for your essay 10... Best wishes for the essay...

=snp

Respected prof Christian Corda,

You are a relativist and say so many good words.... Thank you for those nice words...on Dynamic Universe Model...Your essay is also very good sir....

I am giving maximum appreciation you for your essay 10... Best wishes for the essay...

=snp

Dear Prof Christian Corda

Your excellent words......

An interesting point is that you stresses the evidence for blue-shifted galaxies, which is often ignored by mainstream cosmologists. Concerning your point that gravity should be due to frequency shifting, can you explain how this can be reconciled with Einstein's Equivalence Principle, which has today a strong empiric evidence?

............... My discussion........

1. You are correct...Blue shifted Galaxies are ignored by main streem , which are about 33%.... That's nor correct...

2. I did not say Gravity due to frequency shifting.... Probably Gravity is property of mass and Mass is property of Gravity....

3. Regarding Einstein's Equivalence Principle, which has today a strong empiric evidence...........

I want to pose a little observation on earth...

You might have seen tide waves in sees. High tide will happen in the evenings and mornings every day, is due to SUN's attraction on ocean on earth. On full moon and No moon days, the tide will be higher.... Due to Moon... Standard two body problem cant explain....

Best wishes for the essay...

=snp

Dear Prof Christian Corda

Your excellent words......

can you explain how this can be reconciled with Einstein's Equivalence Principle, which has today a strong empiric evidence?

............... My discussion........

3. Regarding Einstein's Equivalence Principle, which has today a strong empiric evidence...........

I want to pose a little observation on earth...

You might have seen tide waves in sees. High tide will happen in the evenings and mornings every day, is due to SUN's attraction on ocean on earth. On full moon and No moon days, the tide will be higher.... Due to Moon... Standard two body problem cant explain....

I will ask the same observation above in some other words........ If we take m Kg mass at the sea level calculate force on that, will that be equalling to m x g ( where g is acceleration due to gravity on earth) ...? Or will we have to add the Gravitational forces of SUN and MOON on a full moon evening.....?

Best wishes for the essay...

=snp

Respected prof James Lee Hoover

Thank you for the Excellent observations and questions with nice words...on Dynamic Universe Model...Your essay is also very good sir....

I am giving maximum appreciation to you for your essay 10... Best wishes for the essay...

=snp

Respected Prof Jonathan J. Dickau

..............Reply.......

I posted the revised abstract on Jan 2, I was travelling and I posted an earlier essay by mistake. I was in Bhilai for few days then. I know FQXi will not change the essay

.....May please see... sorry for the error....

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT

.............Your words.......

I am sorry to disappoint, Satyavarapu...

..............Reply.......

No disappointment sir, I am trying to understand your nice observations about this model, it is a learning for me....

.............Your words.......

There is some value to various ideas featured in this essay, but it is full of basic errors that seem to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding. Perhaps you have under-estimated the depth of the problem, or perhaps you have some misconceptions about what the endeavor of Physics should be. However; if I was sent this paper as a reviewer for any of the journals where I have been a referee, I would have to say it has some flaws too deep to fix. Academic reviewers often use a three strike rule, where once they see 3 major flaws they will stop reading and if they are kind, they will enumerate those errors.

..............Reply.......

I want to learn the basic errors in this model, you will be pointing out....

.............Your words.......

I read the whole paper, however. So I'll start with the color vs frequency issue; do you realize that blue has a higher frequency than red? In several places; you appear to be saying the opposite. I think you mean that wavelength increases are a red shift while decreasing wavelengths indicate a blue shift. I agree, by the way, that evidence for blue-shifted galaxies is often ignored, and people have the false impression that everything in the cosmos is red-shifted. ..............Reply.......

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT

May please see, above post on jan 2

.............Your words.......

At the 2nd Crisis in Cosmology conference, back in '08; more than one speaker cited blue shift evidence in their talk.

..............Reply.......

Some references please

.............Your words.......

I also agree with your basic premise that gravity can be treated as a kind of frequency shifting phenomenon. There have been a handful of serious academic papers about this, and it is an interesting topic to explore. Unfortunately; a much deeper understanding of things like virtual particles and photons, wave-particle duality, energy of motion, deBroglie wavelength, and so on, is required for a factual treatment of this subject. You come up short.

..............Reply.......

May please see my paper on Nucleosynthesis

https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/p/10-feb-201-6-all-my-published-papers.html

.............Your words.......

I think you got lucky, because I already rated this paper a few days ago, and I was likely more generous than I would be today. Even with some of the deficiencies; it would not be so bad except for the exaggerated claims. But the fact you make such bold promises without a firm basis is offensive.

..............Reply.......

Thank you very much, I am sorry for the mistake done in a hurried way.... I did not intend the post wrong paper...

I did not rate your essay yet, I did not give less than 10 to any one or I refrain rating that essay...

Hope you will read the posting on Jan 2nd.

Hope you will point out some more mistakes... So that I will correct my self...

Thank you for the valuable time you spent on my paper and work...

Thank you for the blessings...

Best Reards

=snp

Respected prof Narendra Nath

I was very lucky to have blessings even at that age 85 years. Thank you for your nice analyzing words on my essay... I posted the revised abstract on Jan 2, I was travelling and I posted an earlier essay by mistake. I was in Bhilai for few days then. I know FQXi will not change the essay.....May please see that post... sorry for the error....

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT

..............your words.......

Your idea of nucleo-synthesis appears to be not consistent with the Big Bang hypothesis where the universe remained mainly H and He nuclei and formed the atomic structure rather late in evolution. The heavier elements formation could start far later and so also the observance of radioactive heavy elements much later. .............Reply.......

Yes sir, It was not consistent.... Dynamic Universe model predicted Blue shifted Galaxies about 10 years before they were discovered by Hubble space telescope few years back. Bigbang based cosmologies neglect about 33% of total Galaxies to support theit expanding Universe model.

May please see my paper on Nucleosynthesis

https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/p/10-feb-201-6-all-my-published-papers.html

This paper on Nucleosynthesis to show Bigbang is not necessary to produce Hydrogen and Helium

............your words .......

You say something towards the non-changing nature of things and perhaps envisaging constancy in the strengths of the force field strengths ever since the creation of the universe. Also, you do not expect the velocity of light to change ever from a higher to a present lower value on the cosmic scale! .............reply.......

Yes Prof, Gravitation is constant in the universe, Velocity of light does not change in cosmic scale...

...............your words .......

I tend to agree with last posting of Jonathan on your essay where he indicates some apparent contradictions in your arguments. Innovation of ideas is one thing but the essential postulates need to be based on some already known factual situation and experimental observations.

..............Reply.......

I replied his post and cleared the confusions, Hope you will look above post...

.................your words.......

May be you can rephrase and re-orient your innovative ideas with better consistancy. I am not judging your mathematical formulations being an experimentalist but physical consistency could be improved further, to enhance the value of your innovative ideas in the presented theory. ..............Reply.......

You can check mathematics also, no problem sir.

...............your words......

We are all limited in our experiences depending on our background and so i am not commenting as any sort of expert at all. I am more or less like you, if not less!

..............Reply.......

Sir you are an expert. I want to ask a question,,,, which I am seeing for the last 35 years after publishing my first paper in the wonderland of Physics, that NO OTHER THEORY EXCEPT Bigbang is supported, even for just mental encouragement, forget financial support of any sort. They will not be entertained even for doing PhD in any University, all over the world this situation is same whatever the amount of work done in the other theories,. Or whatever the predictions came true..... This is true even after many failures of Bigbang based cosmologies. why so...?

Best Regards

=snp

Dear Prof Peter Bauch

Dynamic Universe Model says, "This universe exists now in the present state, it existed earlier, and it will continue to exist in future also in a similar way." Do you think that the universe has existed eternally in the past or did it have a beginning?

....... Correct sir......

Australian Astronomers published many papers... There were many Galaxies that had ages before Bigbang, and many got extincted at 1/4 th of age of Bigbang...

See my essay in FQXi one or two years back for full references of these papers... You can search with Google even...

......Your observation......

As for your solution to the N-body problem and other ideas I haven't the expertise to critique them, but it was certainly interesting to see your alternative views. You've obviously put in a tremendous amount of time and effort into them. Your idea of photons passing "grazingly" by a ponderous mass reminds me of Hawking radiation which occurs around the event horizon of a black hole (yes, I know you don't like black holes).

............. Yes I was working on this for the last 35 years....Yes Black holes don't exist.... Hawking's radiation is different. Here I mean grazingly means.... some thing like TANGENTIALLY to a circle, slightly away from it....

Help me to conduct the experiment for Energy to Mass conversion.....

Thank you for the supporting words ....

Best Regards

=snp

Thank you Peter Jackson

Best

=snp

Dear Peter Jackson

Thank you for all the nice explanations...

I want to ask you few more questions, if you don't mind....

............ Your words......

You asked me to explain further.

For Dark Energy the evidence of something beyond out detection and understanding is now overwhelming from every source, and even with flawed cosmological theory we know it mus contain ~86% of the total mass energy of the universe. It's also the 'condensate' from which all matter condenses. Can we really thing 'pair prooduction' comes from nothing at all! I suggest that would be naive and blinkered. The evidence below isn't exactly mainstream but all is more consistent with the evidence, i.e. resolving a tranche of anomalous findings;

..................Correct, matter or energy cannot be produced from nothing....

..........Your words....

As fermions don't detectably interfere with EM when coupled (n=1) they are 'matter' and 'dark'. Despite old theory hanging on, the numbers we now find contribute significantly.

On cyclic cosmology, answering the 'pre-big bang' paradox and reproducing all CMB anisitropies this model looks better supported than any other including Concordance.;

...................... Have a look at my paper also explaining CMB anisotropies...

...........Your words.....

HJ.v36.Cyclic Galaxy & Cosmological evolution. Alspo Google Laniakea and watch the video of cosmic dynamics...............................

I could not download your PDF please... it was circling around some passwords... can you please send me copy to ... snp.gupta@gmail.com or attach that pdf here to your post?

...................Your words....

Ans in line with modern quantum optics this derivation of quantum redshift at the surface of all expanding Schrodingger sphere surfaces

Redshift without expansion.

...................... Very good idea , and then how will you explain Blue shifted Galaxies?

.......................Your words...................

It's well known Newton is incomplete and inaccurate, as is GR but a bit less so, and my essay(s) show(s) QM's 'absolute' time is correct and 'space/time' is simply derived from just diffraction and Doppler shift of waves...........................

Vet nice and correctly said....

.......................... Your words......................

On that subject, last point; when you say 'frequency will increase (red shifted)' you mean 'wavelength'. Redshift is extended waves which gives DECREASED frequency (the time derivative at c). Wavelength (lambda) is blue shift (gamma waves are very short waves so high frequency. Waves are the REAL scalar, and fl is a constant. That's a staple of astronomy, and my see my 'Much Ado about Nothing' essay for more complete analysis.

......................

I am sorry for this error. I was travelling very heavily in that period at the time of posting this essay. I posted the wrong essay....

Then later I changed the Abstract and posted on Jan 2:

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT

Essay Abstract

I know the essay will not be changed by FQXi....

Thank you for the thorough observation. And keen reading.....

.................your words................

But all good work otherwise. See Also the Sauron survey of galactic rotational shifts and ATLAS3G. I hope that helps.

Can you please give me a link....?

Best Regards

=snp

Hi Wayne R Lundberg

Thank you for the nice words and observations.....

You raise an interesting topic, but like others I don't find a clear fundamental thing or principle or formulae......

..............My reply.......

Here I saw many essays discussing what is fundamental etc, but in this essay, I went for the fundamental issue for energy to mass conversions and blue and redshifts and . I asked for help on observational verifications. I don't have a means for doing the observational verifications as I am an independent researcher.

FQXi wanted this essay should not be a new essay. This original papers for this essay were published and available in the web, please refer them.

....................Your words.......

This essay contest rewards well-written ideas that lead to new observations, and maybe yours ideas are that. But I can't make out how you intend to construct all of particle physics and general relativity, least of all make them into limbs of a larger consistent theory.

...............My reply.....

Some people respond for such words, some will be like you of course. I am also not working for money. Some professors offered money to change into Main stream with money and Ph D etc , but I thought the Ideology of Dynamic Universe Model are better, and provide the world with more solutions and better predictions, even though nobody supports and provide any money to me. I am approaching each individual with this ideology and inviting them to to read my essay. I came to fag end of life. I don't expect much now.

I am not intending to solve all the Physics problems, But I am working to provide solutions to cosmology portions. Thirty five experience with cosmological models taught me that there will not be any financial or otherwise support to any theory that is not supporting General theory of Relativity. I don't know why?

................. your words...........

It seems to be mere philosophy, and physics requires equations. To be sure, many of the Gedanken you use could be experimentally tested, or already have been (likely also excluding this result).

.............. My reply.............

There were many papers available on internet with full mathematical explanation. I can not give 25 pages of mathematics in just 9 pages. I just touched it. Many the axioms are experimentally tested or having observational support, the prediction here is one of the exceptions. Hope you will help me for this....

Thank you for your interest in Dynamic Universe Model.......

Best Regards

=snp