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

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

Sir,

First let me be honest. When I said I was amazed at your list of foundational points, I was expecting that I would see some basis for them. So I read your essay and your blog, but did not find any. Instead, I found paragraphs from Jon Schiller's book, "Big Bang and Black Holes, Origin of the Universe" along with your comments, such as

"On the contrary the discovery of CMB by Penzias and Wilson was only for starlight and Galaxy light; which will amount to CMB radiation. No CMB generated by Big Bang has been measured till date by any instrument."

Starlight? Really? How do you know this? I would love to agree with you because I think that the Big-bang is a cop-out and would like to see supposed evidence like CMB debunked, but I don't think that they just give Nobel prizes.

I also found equations in you essay, but could not follow your reasoning. Sorry.

I said that we are very much in agreement on many points, but I doubt that our reasons are the same. From your list, I agree with the following:

-No singularities

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

My reasons for agreeing with some of these are explained in my essay. For others, I agree simply because concepts like dark matter, dark energy and multi-verses just don't sound right to me. They clash with my intuition and seem more like fairy-tale physics.

Hi Satyavarapu Gupta,

Your paper includes a promising new solution to N body motion problems along with a fine relevant history of mass motions and locations.

First off you present frequency shifting in EM radiation. Let's see if I understand your 'EM radiation grazing near mass' by using a different perspective. A photon beam encounters a hydrogen atom in Earth's upper atmosphere. The wave structure of the photon interacts with the hydrogen wave structure, forming a more complex atom which settles lower in the atmosphere. Then another earth grazing photon combines its waves with the more complex atom adding further complexity. This continues until nitrogen, oxygen etc. are formed and the particle falls to earth. Mass is created. This collision process works better when the atom is moving toward the photon as the net motion is slower than c. It is c - u. On the other side of earth fewer interactions arise as the elements are moving away from the photons at speed u. The speed of any combination becomes c u and an atom is less likely to settle before it exits the atmosphere. This mass creation provides equilibrium as recycling occurs with the release by earth of heat and light.

Note that your close pass issue states frequency increase (red shifted), in your abstract, your introduction and cases 1 &2. This is confusing - inverted shift. The questions you answered within the paper are all about frequencies. But including photons is mostly a side extension of your Dynamic universe model and your formula 25.

I do agree with your discussion of creation of mass via extreme blue shifting of light. I also like your dynamic model for masses. You discuss mass rotation and its influence on the flow of other bodies and on the speed of light. You are able with tensors to plot the logical flow of matter via your program SITA which applies rotational drives from N number of masses to an item/group. The program must address many drive factors. You delete dark matter by including all components of N. I arrived at similar thoughts by placing two equal masses near each other. They have to rotate or will be crashed together. The rotations must all be the same - counterclockwise . Opposite rotations will crash. The universe is a counterclockwise whirling flow. We can see it in our solar system. Solar rotation drives planetary revolutions and rotations. Apparent imperfections such as Venus rotation, the moons rotation and the 90 degree tilted axis of rotation of Uranus are explained by factors such as the placement of the rotational force. A most interesting situation is the high latitude small moons of Jupiter which seem to orbit in reverse. Actually they jointly flow in a coiled path. Examining the varying distances from the sun and velocity changes keeps counterclockwise relevant. Can you process this flow near Jupiter in your program?

regards,

Paul Schroeder