Respected Prof Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri Sab,

Thank you for an elaborate nice explanation of present status....

Your excellent words...................

.............. your persistent enquiring mind generating newer questions. That is the key to perpetual evolution of human minds. However, this was consciously discouraged by human tribal leaders around the globe once they settled down after developing agriculture, animal husbandry, etc. The strongest and the most intelligent tribal leaders could be easily replaced by any of their progenitors. The continued management remained in the hands of the privileged intellectuals (ministers). That is why the older tribal leaders employed the most intelligent administrators (ministers), while giving them access to opulent life.

......................................

I definitely support, You are correct sir, the Tribal Leaders and their intelligent administrators (ministers) are controlling the money flow. They are encashing the situation. They got all the finance and they don't allow someone to speak against. I find this sort of things happens in some powerful religion organisations creating fear.

Let me pray God that Tribal Leaders and intelligent administrators (ministers) will NOT just form any NEW religion.......

Your nice example............................

India is the best example that employed this technique earliest in the history. Recall that Veda, Upanishad, Geeta still represents best possible deep-thinking human philosophy. Yet, this knowledge was banned from the masses. That was institutionalization of slavery of Bharatiya masses. It started well before three thousand years ago. That is why Buddha and Jain "rebelled" (~500 years before Christ's birth). But our intellectuals, serving their masters, prevailed. Propagated explanations were brilliant to protect tribalism all over the world (later, feudalism, colonialism, capitalism, etc.). It continues even today with brilliant rationalizations, all over the world, as to why modern Democracy is the best. However, it not facilitating the evolution of all human minds! Subtly, the tribal-cultures, all over the world, have been continuously enhancing the interpretations of democracy to exploit the primitive evolutionary minds of the masses - procreation, survival food, pleasure, a sense of "stable life" and the fear of being deprived of these evolutionary desires. Instead of pro-actively nurturing the evolution of the humans masses, they actively "nurtured" to keep us at the level that we were ten thousand years ago; while enjoying the benefits of most modern technologies, managing our lives with fingers on our smart phones.

........................... Budda and Jain are correct examples who went against religious takeovers, brought free thinking to an upper hand...

..................Your fine words about primitive people......

Human evolution can be traced back to five million years old "Lucy", the first primitive bi-pedal human. Compared to Lucy, we are so much advanced in technology. But, we still are not consciously constructing a purposeful human civilization. I am sure everybody raises their children to have some purpose in their lives. But, those purposes are defined and constrained by to which "social-socket they can get themselves plugged in". Only rare few individuals venture to explore the meaning and the purpose of human evolution in the biosphere and their long-term purposes and roles in the cosmo-sphere. No country has defined a long-term national purpose for their collective citizenry. Our tribal leader-classes have become masters of applying skills of "animal husbandry" to manage the thinking-human masses all over the world.

......................... They are still following the Lucy and Animal Husbandry to manage the thinking-human masses all over the world. Vey correctly said....

.

..................Your wonderful words.............................

Only by systematic re-kindling of the enquiring minds of all humans can we start to evolve again as a thinking species. Almost all one-year-olds demonstrate that they are born with superb enquiring minds, displayed by their persistent original questions. But, we successfully kill the evolution of those genetically ordained minds by the time they graduate from college. We tend to grow a pair of long ears and a pair of horns like the ships we raise!

..... Yes we raise them like Sheep and Chicken ,,,,,,,,,

................. your Nice words.................

The masses are systematically deprived of recognizing the higher purpose of human evolution through our ten-thousand years' of matured culture directed toward living as if we really belong to the "Animal Farm" (George Orwell). I am really not saying anything new or profound.

..................I think so, we really belong to that "Animal Farm" (George Orwell)......

....... Your profound words..............

We need to start thinking along the line of "Evolution Process Congruency" and as system engineers. We humans are here today because the brilliant engineers like Lucy and her husband continued to develop tools and technologies to live better than their "the-then best". That is the core biological evolutionary pressure. Remember, Lucy did not have any mathematics; not even any matured language. But they continued successfully through trial and errors using intuitive thinking to emulate the evolving nature, a marvelous system engineer. When something worked, they were automatically emulating some ontological rule (laws?) of nature.

................. Correct.....We can use copy cat technology like McDonalds..... But to start the McDonalds... we have to do real thinking.......

...................Your thinking on Mathematics............

Yet no large set of (human invented) mathematical rules, or experimental data can gather COMPLETE information about any entity in this world. We are just advanced "Lucie's". We still do not know exactly what the electrons and photons are. However, we have succeeded in ushering in the Knowledge Age by constructing the Global Internet System!

...................... The mathematics should change according new observations and discoveries. That mathematics which explained some will not accommodate all, should continuously evolve, should change...

..............Your works.............

Please, read the Ch. 12 on how to think in the Indian paperback of my book, "Causal Physics: Photon by Nob-Interaction of Waves", Taylor and Francis, Indian Paperback (2017). You can also go to my web and down load the papers where my concepts have been developed over the last five decades. Remember, Lucy did not invent the modern religions five million years ago.

Evolution is collective. Diversity is at the very foundation of biospheric evolution. These are not simply politically expedient expressions. Now that the humans have become thinking animals, it is fundamentally critical for us to allow the diversity of concepts to flourish, as long as they are expressly evolution process congruent. The only certain truth is that no individual humans have ever succeeded in finding the ultimate truth about our Cosmic System, of which, the Solar system is only a minuscule entity. When the Sun becomes a Red Giant, no life will exist in the Solar System. So, humans have to become deep Space-Travelers. Fortunately, we still have a billion years to evolve, provided we do not succeed in exterminating ourselves before becoming deep Space-Travelers!

My papers: http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

...................I will go through these literature and Come back and post , even if it is after the contest...

Best Regards

=snp

snp: as requested, this is posted from my FQXi essay-site: Gordon Watson

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

............

Dear snp [Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta]

Thanks for commenting thoughtfully on my essay and quoting one of its key components: my theory is driven by facts and evidence.

The truth of my premiss (in that its consequents agree with a thoroughly tested quantum theory and observation) thus advances science and commonsense: for I essentially refine much modern thinking via one realistic (but neglected) fundamental:

At the very foundations of physics, I simply do "what [in your terms] is clear to me" -- I replace naive-realism by true-realism -- to see even more realistic consequences follow.

From this recap, I trust you can see that I am in agreement with this (from you) --- "I use everyday physics as achievable by engineering" --- me happily recalling that many famous physicists were said to be, firstly, engineers.

Alas, as such an engineer, focussed on fundamental foundations, I'm in no position to comment on the grand sweep of schemes like your Dynamic Universe Model.

But from the above it follows that you need have no concern as to what I might mind (or what might be my opinion) about you and your work. I wholeheartedly encourage anyone that seeks to make sense of reality to proceed at their own pace and in their own way; and always (as we agree) with facts and evidence in mind!

In this regard, here are three commonsense mantras that I suspect we share: (1) Reality makes sense and we can understand it. (2) Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery. (3) Only the impossible is impossible.

So for me it is a bonus to see that you are NOT following a branch of main-stream physics that endorses naive-realism: with its consequent quantum-mysteries and nonlocality!

Also: I very much appreciated the question-and-answer-style of your essay; especially the emphasis on experimental results. Though I am more cautious re this conclusion: "No imaginary or negative time axis." Sure that I understand your meaning, I suggest the reference to "an axis" is unnecessary. For me it possible to reason "backward-in-time" from later evidence; like how it was that the Titanic sank so quickly [for then I might use a negative-time axis].

With my thanks again for your comments, and wishing you every success; Gordon

PS: As requested, I will post this on your FQXi essay-site.

......................................

Gordon Watson

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

    Dear Prof Kamal Rajpal sab,

    I downloaded your paper a nd reading it, I will tell my opinion ASAP,

    By the way in Dynamic Universe Model Dark matter is not required....

    Best wishes to your essay

    =snp

    Dear Gordon Watson

    Thanks for well studied comments on my essay

    Your observations about truth do indicate that you are well educated and knowledged person... It is very nice that you work is based on experimental evidences from QM. Any study or work will be successful if it is based on experiments.

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

    From this recap, I trust you can see that I am in agreement with this (from you) --- "I use everyday physics as achievable by engineering" --- me happily recalling that many famous physicists were said to be, firstly, engineers.

    ............... Thank you for the supporting comments...

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

    Alas, as such an engineer, focussed on fundamental foundations, I'm in no position to comment on the grand sweep of schemes like your Dynamic Universe Model.

    But from the above it follows that you need have no concern as to what I might mind (or what might be my opinion) about you and your work. I wholeheartedly encourage anyone that seeks to make sense of reality to proceed at their own pace and in their own way; and (as we agree) always with facts and evidence in mind!

    In this regard, here are three commonsense mantras that I suspect we share: (1) Reality makes sense and we can understand it. (2) Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery. (3) Only the impossible is impossible.

    So for me it is a bonus to see that you are NOT following a branch of main-stream physics that endorses naive-realism: with its consequent quantum-mysteries and nonlocality!

    Also: I very much appreciated the question-and-answer-style of your essay; especially the emphasis on experimental results. Though I am more cautious re this conclusion: "No imaginary or negative time axis." Sure that I understand your meaning, I suggest the reference to "an axis" is unnecessary. For me it possible to reason "backward-in-time" from later evidence; like how it was that the Titanic sank so quickly.

    With my thanks again for your comments, and wishing you every success; Gordon

    PS: As requested, I will post this on your FQXi essay-site.

    .............. thank you for nice blessings and Good opinions expressed on my essay.

    You have written a nice essay and I am giving a high score ...

    Best Regards

    =snp

    Satyav,

    I posted the link you asked for on my string (under 29.1) Also appropriate high score now applied, as intimated. Hope you'll do mine if you haven't as it's just been hit with some 1's!

    Very best

    Peter

      Dear SNP

      I recall your Eq.25 from previous essays. It is quite intuitive and seems reasonable.

      A question not directly related to your essay: Do you have some idea about the cosmic microwave background? The big bang has a good explanation, but maybe it is just an average black-body temperature. Or maybe starlight that has gone in a circle - or a half circle. Imagine a water planet, with a source of waves (like an explosion) at the North pole. The waves would spread out towards the equator and then converge to a point at the South pole. The fact that light is deflected by gravity lends some weight to this possibility.

      Cheers, Colin

        Dear Colin Walker,

        Thank you for your asking about CMB.... My Paper on CMB is available at

        http://viXra.org/abs/1606.0226

        CMB is nothing BUT star light, Galaxy-light and Light from Other inter stellar & Inter Galaxieal Objects in the Microwave region. CMB anisotropies and variations were were calculated and and discussed in the in the above paper given by the above link

        I request you please have a look at this paper and calculations..........

        Best Regards

        =snp

        Hello SNPG,

        I like your list of 'No's. If that is 'Reductionism', so be it!

        Some essay authors have given little consideration to the FQXi evaluation criterion that essays should be 'accessible to a non-specialist audience'.

        We are all enthusiastic about our own interests, and I am no exception - except that I am a member of the 'non-specialist' congregation with respect to physics and mathematics.

        In ruminating over the subjects covered in your essay you make reference to 'about 125 billion galaxies in the universe'. I read between the lines that you are referring to the popular concept of the universe of all-that-is-known, without questioning what lies beyond; distinguished from the universe of all-there-is (known and unknown) which is singular and extends infinitely in all directions.

        This is an important distinction because it leads us to question the function, indeed the very existence of gravity. Insofar as the predominant constituent of the cosmos is vacuum, it follows that, from the point of view of an 'outsider', the outward pressure of vacuum is the cause of an effect that 'insiders' call 'gravity'.

        In matter we find an exhibition of defiance against vacuum, the exception that proves the rule. What is the rule? The rule is that vacuum (unfilled void or space) abhors nature, and flows to fill it's absence. That flow is Nirvana from the Sanskrit 'nir' meaning 'out', and 'vati' meaning 'it blows'.

        Notwithstanding, you are heading in the right direction. Keep going.

        GVH

          Dear snp, My thanks for your comments and support: I wish you well in this contest, with your research and long into the future. Best regards; Gordon.

          Dear Peter Jackson,

          Thank you for your comments and I also gave good score as appropriate.... I will go thro' the link ASAP and post about it...

          best

          =snp

          Thank you for your asking about CMB.... My Paper on CMB is available at

          http://viXra.org/abs/1606.0226

          CMB is nothing BUT star light, Galaxy-light and Light from Other inter stellar & Inter Galaxieal Objects in the Microwave region. CMB anisotropies and variations were were calculated and and discussed in the in the above paper given by the above link

          I request you please have a look at this paper and calculations..........

          Best Regards

          =snp

          Thanks SNP,

          I have downloaded your CMB paper. It is a confusing topic for me, but light from stars is what I also have been thinking.

          Best to you,

          Colin

          Thank you Colin Walker,

          You please ask me any questions if you need. I will try to clear your confusions....

          Best regards

          =snp

          Thank you dear Gary Valentine Hansen for your wonderful words,

          I like your list of 'No's. If that is 'Reductionism', so be it!

          Some essay authors have given little consideration to the FQXi evaluation criterion that essays should be 'accessible to a non-specialist audience'.

          We are all enthusiastic about our own interests, and I am no exception - except that I am a member of the 'non-specialist' congregation with respect to physics and mathematics.

          .................... Thank you , that's the reason I used as simple words as possible, I hope you understand them, but please ask me what ever the doubts you have.... I will try to clarify you...

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

          In ruminating over the subjects covered in your essay you make reference to 'about 125 billion galaxies in the universe'. I read between the lines that you are referring to the popular concept of the universe of all-that-is-known, without questioning what lies beyond; distinguished from the universe of all-there-is (known and unknown) which is singular and extends infinitely in all directions.

          ........................................ It does not make any difference, to us, if there a few trillion more.... Isn't it?. Universe is not necessarily expanding, there are blue shifted Galaxies also...

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

          This is an important distinction because it leads us to question the function, indeed the very existence of gravity. Insofar as the predominant constituent of the cosmos is vacuum, it follows that, from the point of view of an 'outsider', the outward pressure of vacuum is the cause of an effect that 'insiders' call 'gravity'.

          ....................................... I don't there is something beyond the universe. According to Dynamic Universe model postulates , there is no multi-verse. So there are no outsiders to universe. As per the definition of Gravity, I don't know. I feel gravity is mass and vice versa mass is Gravity...............

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

          In matter we find an exhibition of defiance against vacuum, the exception that proves the rule. What is the rule? The rule is that vacuum (unfilled void or space) abhors nature, and flows to fill it's absence. That flow is Nirvana from the Sanskrit 'nir' meaning 'out', and 'vati' meaning 'it blows'.

          ........................... Nirvana is something like death for a yogi....Going into vacuum may not be required.

          Thank you for your blessings... I hope you will ask some further doubts...

          Best wishes to your essay...

          =snp

          Thank you Gordon Watson for your blessings,

          I also wish you the same....

          Best Regards

          =snp

          Satyav,

          That was an impressive paper, good work and I agree most of it. However it didn't contain the derivation of the underlying large scale CMB anisotropic patterns I referred to. Those are the background 'Helicity' in the 'whole sky' distribution, the 'dark' holes, and the overall 'linear' anisotropy; ie. analogously we seem to be towards one side of a 'river' of energy, so each side of us is different.

          These are important indicators of the inadequacy of our cosmological models (as well as all the smaller ones!) so must be fully explained in any proposed replacement model.or it'll just be ignored & dismissed.

          I have to say I also suggest no theory is complete without some indication of pre- 'BBT' conditions. (Not that I subscribe to a BB OR static universe).

          The anisotropies are complex and have confounded most all. There is only one model I know of which derives them, which I was involved with in 2012-13. It may be worth collaborating on an update. It starts with a method familiar at multiple smaller scales from nuclear tokamaks up, at stellar and most familiar at galactic scales. Please do study it carefully and revert if you see a flaw;

          Jackson, P.A. Minkowski, J.S. A Cyclic Model.. HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf

          Very Best

          Peter

          PS My Email is;

          pj.ukc.edu@physics.org

          Dear Peter Jackson ,

          Thank you very much for the very nice and elaborate reply. Thank you for for complementing words...................

          That was an impressive paper, good work and I agree most of it. However it didn't contain the derivation of the underlying large scale CMB anisotropic patterns I referred to. Those are the background 'Helicity' in the 'whole sky' distribution, the 'dark' holes, and the overall 'linear' anisotropy; ie. analogously we seem to be towards one side of a 'river' of energy, so each side of us is different.

          These are important indicators of the inadequacy of our cosmological models (as well as all the smaller ones!) so must be fully explained in any proposed replacement model.or it'll just be ignored & dismissed. ................................. My reply...............

          Yes , I also study them with you....

          ...................Your observations....................

          I have to say I also suggest no theory is complete without some indication of pre- 'BBT' conditions. (Not that I subscribe to a BB OR static universe). ................................. My reply...............

          Is that necessary? I also study them with you....

          ...................Your observations....................

          The anisotropies are complex and have confounded most all. There is only one model I know of which derives them, which I was involved with in 2012-13. It may be worth collaborating on an update. It starts with a method familiar at multiple smaller scales from nuclear tokamaks up, at stellar and most familiar at galactic scales. Please do study it carefully and revert if you see a flaw;

          ................................. My reply...............

          Yes , I will collaborate with you no problems, study them with you....

          ...................Your observations....................

          Jackson, P.A. Minkowski, J.S. A Cyclic Model.. HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf

          ................................. My reply...............

          I could not down load paper, but definitely like to work and study them with you....

          Best Wishes

          =snp

          PS I copying this to your mail also

          pj.ukc.edu@physics.org