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

snp:

What is the link to the papers that compare the Dynamic Universe Model to actual observations?

The STOE did this in STOE model of the universe http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648

I ask because I think it fails to fit data:

Rotation curves are error?

CMB(background radiation fits black body curve very, very well - not starlight.

Other 10 observations of Pioneer anomaly (especially annual and diurnal variation) not accounted.

Several other issues.

Hodge

Satyavarapu,

While I've only had time to read it through once, we do seem to have a similar overall concept; That there is a cyclical relationship between expanding radiation and collapsing mass.

The point I would emphasize is the sense that mass is only a stage of the contraction. That mass is an effect of what we call gravity, rather than gravity a property of mass and this contraction extends to all stages and aspects of frequency contraction, or blueshift.

Such that the gravitational effect attributed to "dark matter' is really extensions of this frequency contraction throughout the light and radiological spectrums.

Gupta:

Very interesting however I do not understand your claim:

If photons are red and blue shifted relative to passing next to gravitational massive objects when they move away and toward the direction

How does a photon passing near the sun in eclipse change the frequency because in this situation the velocity of the sun is transverse to the velocity of the photon?

wolfgang Baer

Please note..

I have read your essay (first pass), and visited the blogspot site. I will have some comments, but I wanted to first let you know I saw you had visited my forum page.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

Your thoughtful comments about my essay are much appreciated, and I am glad to provide comments on your essay.

Particularly in your questions and replies, you frequently mention the theme of empirical or experimental testing. This would seem to be the right emphasis at the present time. You have proposed the Dynamic Universe Model, and you have developed it sufficiently to the point where some of its implications and details are apparent. Logically the next step would be empirical testing of predictions made by the model.

Exactly how that would be done, technologically or practically, I do not know. Certainly, however, that would be an important and necessary process. Best wishes for this phase in the work on the Dynamic Universe Model.

Laurence Hitterdale

Satyavarapu,

Thank you for checking out my essay. As you mention, frequency shifts should not be difficult to observe, given the right resources. I'm assuming that you would prove the fundamental relationships of mass and energy in dynamic settings with your proofs. Different effects of gravitational lensing as well.

An different but interesting approach. I am in the review phase of my readings.

Plan to return.

Jim Hoover

I am sorry to disappoint, Satyavarapu...

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.

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

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.

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.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Satyavarapu,

Thank you for the offer. I have to say I'm not really involved in physics and only started studying it as a way to make sense of deeper sociological issues.

Here is an entry in a previous contest, trying to tie together philosophy, physics, economics and sociology; https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1981

I appreciate trading ideas around and you are certainly welcome to use whatever is helpful. I find I prefer being an observer than a focus of attention and am getting to old to change now.

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. 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! \

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. 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. 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!

Satyavarapu,

Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest so far. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I have not scored yours and am remedying it now.

Jim Hoover

Hi S N P Gupta

Excellent essay about the dynamic universe, it is so close to me.

I completely agree with you, although we use different terms.

I congratulate you on what you have accomplished so far.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Dear Gupta,

Your efforts is very appreciable to forward a some new representation of cosmology that can provide a new opportunities to be solving more quantity of problems. The dynamical nature of Cosm must be out of doubt in generally, in my opinion. Meantime, as you says in your work, the frequency change on the both direction under influence of moving gravitating body (with your interpretation) it is still on the level of supposition. So, we can wish only that it will be tested-observed any time.

I can say that I'm also very skeptical on the existence of so called "dark matter". I can say on the "Black holes" that here also something goes by hurried way, there must be some more comprehensive interpretation. However, I do not doubt on the correctness of BB concept and to Hubble's expansion, that as seems to me, you also would like to revise (?) I think this no need to do!

Whatever, I see your work as very appreciable, since it gives a new ideas and approaches that can serve to examination of specialists. I wish you success in the contest!

Best wishes

THE PREVIOUS POST FROM ME (that was mentioned as "Anonymous")