Dear Jonathan J. Dickau

Thank you for visiting my page, I am waiting for your valuable comments.... You did a wonderful discussion "we should instead see gravity as a consequence of the remaining forces - rather than a fundamental force - and this view gives unique insights into possible quantum gravity theories and the nature of gravity itself." You gave a nice introduction to quantum Gravity!

Respected Dr Laurence Hitterdale,

Thank you for your esteemed nice words and blessings on Dynamic Universe Model,

I am also hoping for someone will help me for testing this model's new prediction. I am an individual and independent researcher from a lower middle class family. I cant do all these testing myself. I hope you will help me to find a means for testing this proposition..I hope and pray God for the best...

You wrote a very nice essay, I am giving my maximum appreciation (10) for your essay now best wishes for your essay....

Thank you once again for pleasant words again.....

Best regards

=snp

Dear James Lee Hoover

Thank you for your esteemed fine words on my essay. Thank you for saying that "frequency shifts should not be difficult to observe, given the right resources." Can you please help me further? How to do that?

I am providing " the fundamental relationships of mass and energy in dynamic settings with your proofs." .... As in Dynamic Universe model is nothing but E=mC2 only, which is nothing but Einstein's mass to energy to mass conversion. Now Dynamic Universe Model proposes to have energy to mass conversion this time in this essay.

All my Published Books and essays are available at in "books published" and "papers published" tabs of ....

https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

And on "Different effects of gravitational lensing as well" ....... "Multiple Bending of light produces multiple images for Galaxies on earth", was published almost about 30 years back .... If you need further information I will give you

Thank you for your blessing words "An different but interesting approach. I am in the review phase of my readings." I am hoping for the best.....

Best Regards

=snp

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

          • [deleted]

          • Post #89

          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

            Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta, despite (being a relativist) I disagree with the main claims of your Essay (No Space-time continuumn, No black holes, No differential and Integral Equations, No general relativity, etc.) I must admit that you wrote an original Essay. An interesting point is that you stresses the evidence for blue-shifted galaxies, which is often ignored by mainstream cosmologists. Concerning your point that gravity should be due to frequency shifting, can you explain how this can be reconciled with Einstein's Equivalence Principle, which has today a strong empiric evidence? In any case, your Essay has been a pleasant reading. Thus, I will give you an high score. Good luck in the Contest. Cheers, Ch.

              Thank you for the mail Prof George

              Thank you for the wonderful words on my essay... Lets workout some ideas further...

              I am giving maximum appreciation to you for your essay ... Best wishes for the essay...

              =snp

              Respected prof Fedorov,

              Thank you for the nice words...on Dynamic Universe Model...Your essay is also very good sir....

              I am giving maximum appreciation you for your essay 10... Best wishes for the essay...

              =snp

              Respected prof Christian Corda,

              You are a relativist and say so many good words.... Thank you for those nice words...on Dynamic Universe Model...Your essay is also very good sir....

              I am giving maximum appreciation you for your essay 10... Best wishes for the essay...

              =snp

              Dear Prof Christian Corda

              Your excellent words......

              An interesting point is that you stresses the evidence for blue-shifted galaxies, which is often ignored by mainstream cosmologists. Concerning your point that gravity should be due to frequency shifting, can you explain how this can be reconciled with Einstein's Equivalence Principle, which has today a strong empiric evidence?

              ............... My discussion........

              1. You are correct...Blue shifted Galaxies are ignored by main streem , which are about 33%.... That's nor correct...

              2. I did not say Gravity due to frequency shifting.... Probably Gravity is property of mass and Mass is property of Gravity....

              3. Regarding Einstein's Equivalence Principle, which has today a strong empiric evidence...........

              I want to pose a little observation on earth...

              You might have seen tide waves in sees. High tide will happen in the evenings and mornings every day, is due to SUN's attraction on ocean on earth. On full moon and No moon days, the tide will be higher.... Due to Moon... Standard two body problem cant explain....

              Best wishes for the essay...

              =snp

              Dear Prof Christian Corda

              Your excellent words......

              can you explain how this can be reconciled with Einstein's Equivalence Principle, which has today a strong empiric evidence?

              ............... My discussion........

              3. Regarding Einstein's Equivalence Principle, which has today a strong empiric evidence...........

              I want to pose a little observation on earth...

              You might have seen tide waves in sees. High tide will happen in the evenings and mornings every day, is due to SUN's attraction on ocean on earth. On full moon and No moon days, the tide will be higher.... Due to Moon... Standard two body problem cant explain....

              I will ask the same observation above in some other words........ If we take m Kg mass at the sea level calculate force on that, will that be equalling to m x g ( where g is acceleration due to gravity on earth) ...? Or will we have to add the Gravitational forces of SUN and MOON on a full moon evening.....?

              Best wishes for the essay...

              =snp

              Respected prof James Lee Hoover

              Thank you for the Excellent observations and questions with nice words...on Dynamic Universe Model...Your essay is also very good sir....

              I am giving maximum appreciation to you for your essay 10... Best wishes for the essay...

              =snp

              Respected Prof Jonathan J. Dickau

              ..............Reply.......

              I posted the revised abstract on Jan 2, I was travelling and I posted an earlier essay by mistake. I was in Bhilai for few days then. I know FQXi will not change the essay

              .....May please see... sorry for the error....

              Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT

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

              I am sorry to disappoint, Satyavarapu...

              ..............Reply.......

              No disappointment sir, I am trying to understand your nice observations about this model, it is a learning for me....

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

              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.

              ..............Reply.......

              I want to learn the basic errors in this model, you will be pointing out....

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

              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. ..............Reply.......

              Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT

              May please see, above post on jan 2

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

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

              ..............Reply.......

              Some references please

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

              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.

              ..............Reply.......

              May please see my paper on Nucleosynthesis

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

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

              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.

              ..............Reply.......

              Thank you very much, I am sorry for the mistake done in a hurried way.... I did not intend the post wrong paper...

              I did not rate your essay yet, I did not give less than 10 to any one or I refrain rating that essay...

              Hope you will read the posting on Jan 2nd.

              Hope you will point out some more mistakes... So that I will correct my self...

              Thank you for the valuable time you spent on my paper and work...

              Thank you for the blessings...

              Best Reards

              =snp

              Respected prof Narendra Nath

              I was very lucky to have blessings even at that age 85 years. Thank you for your nice analyzing words on my essay... I posted the revised abstract on Jan 2, I was travelling and I posted an earlier essay by mistake. I was in Bhilai for few days then. I know FQXi will not change the essay.....May please see that post... sorry for the error....

              Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT

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

              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. .............Reply.......

              Yes sir, It was not consistent.... Dynamic Universe model predicted Blue shifted Galaxies about 10 years before they were discovered by Hubble space telescope few years back. Bigbang based cosmologies neglect about 33% of total Galaxies to support theit expanding Universe model.

              May please see my paper on Nucleosynthesis

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

              This paper on Nucleosynthesis to show Bigbang is not necessary to produce Hydrogen and Helium

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

              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! .............reply.......

              Yes Prof, Gravitation is constant in the universe, Velocity of light does not change in cosmic scale...

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

              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.

              ..............Reply.......

              I replied his post and cleared the confusions, Hope you will look above post...

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

              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. ..............Reply.......

              You can check mathematics also, no problem sir.

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

              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!

              ..............Reply.......

              Sir you are an expert. I want to ask a question,,,, which I am seeing for the last 35 years after publishing my first paper in the wonderland of Physics, that NO OTHER THEORY EXCEPT Bigbang is supported, even for just mental encouragement, forget financial support of any sort. They will not be entertained even for doing PhD in any University, all over the world this situation is same whatever the amount of work done in the other theories,. Or whatever the predictions came true..... This is true even after many failures of Bigbang based cosmologies. why so...?

              Best Regards

              =snp

              I have responded to your comments on my Essay site. Kindly go there to see my response. I also note that your Essay appears to have received the most comments by many of the members of the community here, when comapred with other essays that i could find time to go through. The discussion here is a website one and thus comments become longer than otherwise needed in a discusion at a conference/meeeting! Let us hope that others too find time to look at the discussions on your essay. Strangely it does not have high rating though it has received comments from many other authors in this contest!