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

Clarification - Para 6.1 of my Essay - The "Mysterious" Fundamental

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

I read with great interest your deep essay with new radical ideas that are aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. The Contests of the Fundamental Questions Institute are, first of all, competitions of new ideas in fundamental science. Your model of the Universe gives such new ideas. I believe that there should be a World Bank of Fundamental Ideas in all UN languages, with their constant discussion by all members of the world scientific community. The global scientific community must support the competition of ideas, primarily in cosmology .

Successes in the Contest!

Best wishes,

Vladimir

Satyavarapu,

Your paper contained a good understanding of observations regarding red and blue shift. We are both interested in Dr. Rubin's work and the need to understand dark matter. I notice that some of your other papers address this issue. I agree with your statement that the physical laws are everywhere the same. I had not seen your equation 25 before but your use of the equation to predict frequency seemed to be accurate. You mentioned continual nucleosynthesis in your abstract but I got stuck on how this began. If frequency shift occurs when electromagnetic radiation grazes a massive body and if this is related to formation of mass (nucleosynthesis), where did the original mass come from? I would like to have seen more discussion about general relativity. I think your equations might lead to frequency shifting as a cause of light bending near massive objects, not the shape of space. Is that correct?

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Gene H Barbee

Thank you for all Your words of appreciation.......

.........Your paper contained a good understanding of observations regarding red and blue shift. We are both interested in Dr. Rubin's work and the need to understand dark matter. I notice that some of your other papers address this issue. I agree with your statement that the physical laws are everywhere the same. I had not seen your equation 25 before but your use of the equation to predict frequency seemed to be accurate.

..................... reply....

It was published in many earlier papers, I can send you if you give me your mail id... But you can search some of the old papers of Dynamic Universe model in the web page...

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

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

You mentioned continual nucleosynthesis in your abstract but I got stuck on how this began. If frequency shift occurs when electromagnetic radiation grazes a massive body and if this is related to formation of mass (nucleosynthesis), where did the original mass come from?

...............reply.....

See the above link for nucleosynthesis please...

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

I would like to have seen more discussion about general relativity. ...............reply.....

I also like to have a discussion with you any time, you start asking questions please...

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

I think your equations might lead to frequency shifting as a cause of light bending near massive objects, not the shape of space. Is that correct?

.............yes mam you are correct, .... Shape of the space does not have any effect in Dynmic Universe model, no space time continuum here.....

Best regards

=snp

snp

Thank you for your kind comments on mine. I re-post my response here as requested;

I recall your model, much in which agrees with the discrete field model but also much doesn't. As a quick check;

1-5; I agree. 'Collisions' are interactions and common (but not galaxy growth by collision). 'Black Holes' exist but as Active Nuclei, quite different from early theory still often assumed and including a larger scale fractal version as a 'big whoosh' recycling process not bang. No 'worm holes', but all matter is re-ionised and used again with other freshly condensed - so maybe a similar result!

All than agreed rejected up to 'dark' matter (but only n=1 fermion plasma) and dark energy (condensate) which do exist.

No multiverses but all the complex CMB anisotropies emerge in detail from the 'AGN' type recycling model.

Then; NO accelerating expansion required to explain redshit, Newton incomplete, linear 'absolute' time, ...then often qualified support for most of the rest.

By all means raise any item and I'll explain my comments. All in all not a bad model but still inconsistent and with a couple of major conflicting assumptions. None I can see that are fatal, but it looks to me like more solid foundations are still needed.

I have your essay on my list.

Very Best

Peter

As requested, I will alert you of my reply to your post at essay 3009:

Hi S. N. P. Gupta,

"Can FT or CT work for multivariable business forcasting?"

FT with analytic continuation as well as CT are methods to perform a spectral analysis of already measured data, not immediately a forecast. What do you mean by multivariable business?

While I didn't deal with models of the universe and I don't intend doing so, I will have a brief look at your model of our universe as soon as possible.

So far, I am happy that you found out and pointed to a rather amazing fundamental argument from my 9th essay. My most fundamental assumption is causality.

Best,

Eckard Blumschein

Dear snp,

An interesting idea. I also think that the Universe can be modeled using linear equations based on Galilean principles. You might be interested to read my 2012 FQXi essay titled "A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity".

The creation of Matter by light passing close to atomic nuclei is known to occur - pair production - but this is due to the strong electric field around, for example, a lead nucleus. Likewise electrons and positrons can mutually anihilate to produce gamma rays (light). There is a balance between both these types of events.

I think you have 'Red shifted' and 'Blue shifted' around the wrong way in you equations 32 and 33. A higher frequency would be a blue shift and a lower frequency would be a red shift.

Regards,

Declan

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

Thank you for your nice remarks on my contribution.

About your DUM :

I agree with all the points beginning with NO etc. Why ? Because I think that ALL of them were emergent phenomena in a past that applies to the emergent reality of an alo emergent agent, THEY ARE JUST ONE ILLUSION OF AN INFINITY NUMBER OF REALITY LOOPS. It is the result of time-interperetation of our limited consciousness. That is also the reason that our universe is looking ultimate fine-tuned. It is not useful to create a reality that is not perceived by an agent (in our case the agent is a human being).

Your perception of reality is as you say a "singularity free tensor based math model".

I can fully agree with that because any singularity will be behind the Planck area, so as an "entity" not part of emerging reality. The "math" part is the part of "thinking" the language of consciousness. I cannot follow you in the math part because mathematics are not my strongest point, but I assume that you will be right.

Furthermore my perception is that in your own emergent unique reality this is YOUR finetuned explanation which is TRUE for you. It is YOUR "quantum reality loop". In middle ages there was no quantum mechanics and people had their TRUTH. In a million years when there are conscious agents that have the availability of other different senses and techniques in their OWN LOOP (where our history is placed in) will smile about us and our efforts. But we are both sharing on our Subjective Simultaneity Sphere a lot of the same incoming data. I cannot but agree with the trgee cases you indicated.

For ALL the questions that you are answering by DUM, you know already my answers, we are both right....

I thank you for a well founded theory, that is is a valuable contribution to our thinking.

I esteemed you essay high with a rating and hope that you will do so also with

mine .

Best regards

Wilhelmus

Thank You Mr. Gupta

I was going to ask you a few questions. For now only one question: In meteorology we have these formations: cyclone, anticyclone, troughs, ridge, saddle. What would be the appropriate five formations in cosmology? What are the masses, speeds and acceleration at the transition between these formations? Or maybe you have link.

If you agree later I would have more questions on your post.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Satyavarapu Naga;

I found your Dynamic Universe Model very interesting, but I did not see in it any relevance to the topic of this contest.

Yours;

Diogenes

Dear Satyavarapu Naga,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I answered your comment in https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3029

When I read your essay and if the universe behave as you described, the question that comes to my mind is: Before modern physics was discovered, where do ancient people thinking and actions fit into your theory?

Kind regards,

Christophe

Dear snp,

While I still suspect you didn't read my essay carefully, I have to admit, I for my part am inclined to agree on an emotional "layman" basis with almost all of the many of your opinions you listed.

Let me just discuss this one:

"-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe".

Hmm. Of course, the word universe means there is only one reality. In this sense, I too see it as closed as also is the so called absolute Archimedean infinity in contrast to Bernoulli/Leibniz/Cantor's relative infinities.

Nonetheless, Sommerfeld's radiation condition is certainly not wrong:

Radiation is never reflected from infinity.

I will not finally judge your essay before I managed reading your essay and related stuff with the due care.

Best,

Eckard