Dear Boris Dizhechko,

Thank you very much for all the support, I don't know how to repay, except reciprocating your help....

Best Regards

=snp

Hi Frank Dodd Smith

Why NOTHING is Fundamental ? Dear Frank Dodd Smith.... You can start with the status of Universe is as it is, it is Dynamically Changing......

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

Hi Steve Agnew

Wonderfully matching ideas dear Steve Agnew.... The concept "Although continuous space and time seem to be fundamental to our universe, Discrete Matter and Action is Fundamental" you are correct.... Very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

Hi S N P Gupta,

First you need to realize that I do not try to convince others who have a theory of everything of their own to believe mine. But you asked what I think so I will share...

As someone else already posted - Your essay really does not answer what is fundamental. My opinion is that what you have presented in your essay will not contribute to a theory of everything. The reasons is because you start with known entities, parameters and equations. I know basic physics and the mathematics required to express the postulates of general relativity. I also know the essence of quantum mechanics and its basic equations and what they represent. My theory is only advanced to the internal energy structure of spacetime, primordial photons and the first two elementary particles that possess mass. It took a 350 page book to present this work. Physicists will need to take over where I left off. However my model does derive all the math of the known physics we have now.

I am not here to win research money, I am an orthpedic surgeon and my wife a cardiologist - I am only here to help physicists realize that the foundation they are looking for is right under their noses but impossible to arrive at from current math and any experiment that can be performed. I really do not care what my ratings are - It will be even more fun if they are low when reading about it in my historical book about getting the theory of everything out into academia

I wish you the best of luck -

Scott S Gordon, MD

    Sayavarapu

    Your article is interesting with many new ideas. However, I am not qualified to judge the idea of frequency shift near a mass, unfortunately.

    Regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson

      Hi Scott S Gordon

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

      First you need to realize that I do not try to convince others who have a theory of everything of their own to believe mine. But you asked what I think so I will share..

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

      Yes sir, my thinking was also same, when I gave my first presentation about 35 years back on Dynamic Universe Model in IIT, Madras, India, But immediately I realized people should use this model get the real benefits .... Even after 35 years, whatever the predictions came true like existence of blue shifted Galaxies, the results I show, or results of Dynamic Universe Model..... people never bothered.... Now I came to FAG end of my life...So I am trying to reach individual thinkers like you to make understand this model so that I can pass-on this..... Even-though you are like this now, after getting some more results, I am sure you will do the same at some point of time in your life however closed you keep it.

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

      As someone else already posted - Your essay really does not answer what is fundamental. ..............My reply..............

      You mean I should beat around the bush discussing "what is fundamental", or discussing about the FQXi question ... "what is fundamental?" I took a fundamental question of frequency shifting which is foundational to element formation....and energy to Mass conversion.... Is it not fundamental? Sabine Hossenfelder's observation is important... that's what I told. .................Your words.......

      My opinion is that what you have presented in your essay will not contribute to a theory of everything. .................My reply..............

      I never said Dynamic Universe Model is theory of every thing.... Why did you think like that...?

      .................Your words.......The reasons is because you start with known entities, parameters and equations. I know basic physics and the mathematics required to express the postulates of general relativity. I also know the essence of quantum mechanics and its basic equations and what they represent. My theory is only advanced to the internal energy structure of spacetime, primordial photons and the first two elementary particles that possess mass. It took a 350 page book to present this work. Physicists will need to take over where I left off. However my model does derive all the math of the known physics we have now.

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

      Good work sir, you did nicely, that means you should use bad words for the other peoples work especially when you don't understand, you ask questions about it, try to understand it....

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

      I am not here to win research money,

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

      Very good sir, you are a rich man, you don't require any money.... For me I am not rich, I never got any support from Physics or mathematics communities, either, leave alone financial support, that does not mean I should not tell the benefits of Dynamic Universe Model to others, is it not?

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

      I am an orthpedic surgeon and my wife a cardiologist -

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

      I am retired steel plant employee, my wife is house wife in India.

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

      I am only here to help physicists realize that the foundation they are looking for is right under their noses but impossible to arrive at from current math and any experiment that can be performed. I really do not care what my ratings are - It will be even more fun if they are low when reading about it in my historical book about g etting the theory of everything out into academia

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

      Good objective sir, hope they will use your expertise...

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

      I wish you the best of luck -

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

      Best wishes to you too, thank you for valuable time spent for reading and giving your esteemed thinking

      =snp

      Dear John-Erik Persson,

      Thank you for your Good words and Blessings.... You please don't Under estimate your self sir....

      Best Wishes for your essay...

      =snp

      SNPG

      You use c+u (I use u because I have no mu) which leads to a velocity larger than the

      speed of light. This is a Newtonian view and not an Einstein view as you say. Newton

      offers good results for velocities much smaller than the speed of light, but Einstein is correct

      for speeds close to c, as many experiments confirm. Perhaps your ideas can be formulated

      to respect that reality.

      JK

        Hi S N P Gupta,

        I agree that we should keep our minds open for alternatives, even if they might appear baffling, and this is fundamental. Isn't it puzzling that in hep you can propose almost anything, while just hinting to some skepticism about the big bang puts you in the 'fringe' category? I should have to find time to reread you essay and to take a look at your other papers.

        Best.

        a.l.

          Satyavarapu,

          First, this is not a discussion on what is fundamental in physics or elsewhere. Secondly, I am not qualified to comment on the content of the essay.

          This said, you have come a long way from the steel mill, with a theory, books and presentations. In my opinion, the photon is a soliton like wavelet. The h Planck content is locked into a specific delivery time, the period. All photons have the same Planck content. The only difference is in the delivery time. In other words, the photon is "Power". It makes sense to see it this way because in a universe with a running time background, "how quickly" something happens is what is important.

          Best of luck,

          Marcel,

            Surely Sit

            The continual creation of matter may link quantum with gravity.

            none remain the fundamental in that case and the process itself is fundamental

            the creation of life from matter is another level ..

            regards

            alok

            Dear SNP Gupta ! I pushed the rating of your essay a bit up. DUM is an alternative physical theory, and I like thinking out of the box. This nucleosynthesis thing is crucial, and I found it interesting.

              Nice observations Alokji,

              "The continual creation of matter may link quantum with gravity." ..... Elaborate on this some more please...

              Best

              =snp

              Dear John Rider Klauder ,

              Thank you very much for nice observation, that is one of the Dynamic Universe Model predictions came true

              There were some recent experiments that showed velocities higher than that of light are achieved... in Europe as I remember. You can check in Wikipedia. Please see my paper on Velocities more than light for a more elaborate discussion ....

              https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

              Waiting for more questions....

              Best Regards

              =snp

              Thank you dear a losev,

              For your blessings and more open view about my papers and alternative (fringe!) models... There are very few people take it that way....

              I request you go through my papers and you can reply me even after this contest closed to my ID...

              snp.gupta@gmail.com

              Waiting to see some more observations from you....

              Best

              =snp

              Dear Stephen,

              Thank you for pushing me up.... I also did the same, now your score reads 6.2... Best wishes to your essay

              =snp

              • [deleted]

              • Post #30

              Dear Satyavarapu,

              I answered your comment in https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2978

              Greathings, Hans

                Respected Marcel,

                Thank you very much for your kind words and for reading my essay. Yes Bhilai steel plant gave me time, food, house and medicines to me and my family, you are exactly correct. You people like FQXi heard me, allowed me.... I am not rich man, I used to carry my wife on my bicycle on the back carrier for the first three years in my job in steel plant. Getting books in physics and Mathematics was one of the very expensive and difficult things for me before availability of internet, they are not available in steel plant library...

                By the way, Photons are energy only. They are not locked in any specific time period I think...

                More photons means a brighter beam. power (Energy/sec) is proportional to the number of photons/sec.

                Photons with shorter wavelengths and higher frequencies have more energy. That is a bluer beam has more power.

                So P=nhν P=nhν where n is the number of photons/sec.

                https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165757/relation-between-number-of-photons-and-energy

                Lets further discuss...

                Best regards

                =snp

                Respected Sir,

                Marvelous !

                You have given an impressive glimpse of persistent hard work carried over decades to come up with a model "Dynamic Universe Model". Your work is an important contribution in this Essay contest.

                The outcome of experiments, as suggested by you, can tell how far your model is accepted by the Scientist Community. My please refer para 6.1 on sustainability of scientific theories - There I have mentioned - In place of expecting to see rise of absolute theory (perpetually true theory) it would be better to rate nascent theory by making use of Bayesian inference to update the probability for it to be true as more evidence or information becomes available.

                My view is that any model cannot be a true reflection of reality. At a given point of time - we may have different competing theories that will qualify as a 'Fundamental Theories'. We are only a budding knowledge society as of now.

                I would love to get more insight about your work.

                With best wishes

                Brajesh Mishra