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

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.

Dear Satyavarapu,

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

Greathings, Hans

Dear Satyavarapu,

I answered your comment in Hans van Leunen

Greathings, Hans

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

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