Dear Paul,

Bold alternative ideas in your essay. Yes, in the basis of physics and knowledge in general, including about the Universe, alternative views are needed. Philosophy is a good helper here.

It's good to recall the philosophical testament of John Archibald Wheeler: "To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?' "(JA Wheeler, interview with Timothy Ferris, Coming of Age in the Milky Way)

Best regards,

Vladimir

    8 days later

    I appreciate that you chose to read my paper and provide a strength of interest in your response.

    I have read and comment on your paper.

    Vladimir Rogozhin

    I thank you for the depth of thought within your response to my paper. My ideas tend to be too far asunder for readers to form a focused response. Your use of JA Wheeler's testament makes a startlingly fine overview of my perspective.

    As intended, there is much philosophy in this contest. The terminology and history of philosophy are hard to follow and bypass my mind. Somehow my attempt to just apply logic seems to stand outside the world of thought which is attended by philosophers. Clearly someone such as yourself is needed to transfer my logic points into an overview philosophy of the universe.

    If your network has physics oriented members who are interested in an overall mega-philosophy perspective of the universe, you might forward some of my papers to them. Thank you so much for what you have written to me!

    Best regards

    Paul

    8 days later

    Dear Paul Schroeder ,

    Thank you for remembering me, thank you for your kind words of appreciation !!

    I remember well about our communication. Hope you have done some more work on your "Universe is Otherwise" Model, like developing some more math support etc.... I will go through your paper and I will comment there ASAP. Yes you correctly said, you and I are cosmologists who oppose Bigbang.

    Our Universe is Closed, No "energy" or "Matter" goes out of Universe. Well OK.I remember saying it is really good. Infinite Universe do have some problem , if you calculate radiation falling on a unit area due to infinite number of stars/Galaxies, that Unit area will become infinitely bright. I did not remember how you overcame that problem.

    I will continue in another post.

    Best Regards

    =snp

      Dear Paul Schroeder ,

      I was just reading your essay, I got some comments. I am witing in accordance with your points....

      a. I fully agree , Light will bend, Its Frequency upshifts, and its speed also varies slightly.

      b. God is the consciousness of the Universe, for that matter if it is finite or infinite it does not matter, Multiple Universes are not required for that ....

      Infinite Universe do have some physical problem , if you calculate radiation falling on a unit area due to infinite number of stars/Galaxies, that Unit area will become infinitely bright. How you overcame that problem........

      c. Well said, Gravity is the reason for motion in the Universe.

      Infinite Space will provide infinite gravity??? I dont think space is having relation to Gravity. Number of Masses will have number of Gravitational pulls,resultant vector force decides motion of that Mass.

      d. Why are you calling gravitational attraction as Push? Probably you mean it is a pull. Hence resultant of Multiple attraction forces (pushes) will make a body to move. This is what exactly Dynamic Universe Model also says

      Well argued essay, I just gave highest of appreciation to your essay,

      Best wishes

      =snp

        Dear Paul Schroeder ,

        There are blue shifted galaxies and red shifted galaxies in the universe.. Universe is rotating. Assume a children's giant wheel in a amusement park, you are looking at it in its plane of rotation.Some buckets come near to you and some will go away. Those which are coming near are Blue shited and going away are red shifted.

        Now assume many giant wheels each rotating about its own axis and these wheels are rotating rotating Dynamically in different planes about each other. You are in a bucket in a wheel. then you see the some buckets come near and some go away in all directions. so if you observe only those buckets which are going away you will see expanding , only those coming near to you you will see contracting universe.

        I hope this explains...

        Please check my blog for further details...

        Best regards

        =snp

          Light is affected by the gravity of the source which gradually reduces the speed to that of red light and then microwaves. So the unit area you mention would be fully lit except that the arriving beams are mostly microwaves resulting in the cosmic microwave background. (rejoice Olber - paradox found)

          Paul

          No - gravity is a push! Everyone fails here.

          Use wind as an analogy: Put a fan at point E and aim its wind toward distant point W. The air flow arrives at W. Then place a fan at W aimed at E. centrally between the fans the winds offset. Place a fan at point N aimed at distant point S. Some of the air flow arrives at S and the net flow at the center (point C) is toward S. There is chaos of flows at C. Put a fan at point S aimed at point N and the directional chaos is calmed. But the flows may reflect each other so reflected flow goes elsewhere. We can extend by placing a fan above and one below.

          Place a globe called Earth at the center. Now all point sections incur a push toward the middle so inhabitants incur downward attraction. Now place a larger globe near one of the fans, perhaps fan E. The wind from fan E is partially blocked. The net wind flow at the center is toward fan E. This is called solar attraction.

          At the center all the flows would seem to reflect off the Earth. But the winds will now be called gravity pressure. Earth happens to have a density that provides only a partial block (say 10%) as the flows penetrate and ultimately exits the earth (also, but say 30% block, for the sun). So now consider a point X at the N side of earth. The flow from N is pushing down that earth point X while the flow from S penetrates earth on the opposite side and exits at X with 90% pressure. The net of 10% pressure upon the earth at surface point N is the net pressure we incur and call attraction.

          There is much more.

          Paul

          SNP,

          There is no reason to explain red shift and blue shift relative to motion. The problem physics has is that there is more red shift than blue shift so the theory became overall there is motion away. But a static universe says the excess red shift is not caused by motion away. My model says light is affected/slowed by gravity and light from far distant sources will be traveling slower by the time they arrive to us and those rays will show red.

          Paul

          6 days later

          Hello Paul,

          I recognized your name by cross-referencing to my library. Without letters on the spine; your book is hard to identify. We must have crossed paths at a conference, perhaps CCC-2 in Port Angeles. You should be made aware that a LARGE number of serious researchers ARE pursuing your ideas, but while openly in secret because they have cast things in very different terms. Of course; I think the universe is inside-out, so your gravity model makes perfect sense. And there was an FQXi essayist a few years back with a sink drain model...

          You can find a fairly precise analogy in the work of Dvali and Gomez, because your PAEPs are seen to be gravitons. This is easy to generalize into a full theory of gravity, which I have called "Gravitation by Condensation." But the work of Jacobson, Padmanabhan, and Verlinde on theories of thermodynamic or entropic gravity point in the same direction and are basically examples of external gravitation. This notion is easily combined with Einstein simply by noting lines of space converge to a radius not a point. This then is the surface onto which gravitons settle.

          My essay has links to some of this material. There are hundreds of papers to reference though. See Barcelo, Liberati, Visser, papers on Analogue Gravity. See Steinhauer et al for experiments of note.

          More later,

          Jonathan

            P.S. - don't take too much credit Paul...

            If your ideas are correct; you should know the seed was planted by Sakharov way back in 1967, to derive most of what is novel about your work. Most people thought Sakharov's 'Induced Gravity' was a silly notion, superfluous, and quite possibly wrong-headed, even though it was Sakharov telling the story, however.

            His original article is short and cryptic, dealing mainly with the idea that quantum mechanical interactions could be a source of curvature terms in the gravitational field. But eventually people got the idea that this tied into BEC formation, and the quantum critical point as event horizon idea was spawned.

            But I would revisit your own ideas, after digesting some of what has been written on the subject, and you will discover a richness to the topic you were not aware existed before.

            Warm regards,

            Jonathan

            Jonathan Dickau,

            "You should be made aware that a LARGE number of serious researchers ARE pursuing your ideas, but while openly in secret because they have cast things in very different terms. Of course; I think the universe is inside-out, so your gravity model makes perfect sense."

            It is hard for me to believe what you wrote above and then you gave my contest paper a 1. You do seem to think others have similar cosmology ideas. But if so the material matching my papers would be in some headlines. No discussion has arrived, as physics has continued with the standard model seemingly forever. All those decades of nonsense, such as the big bang, remain as a cornerstone of physics. When will students be taught some truths. One answer is that the people you reference are only patching current models or have only partial new models, so the standard model remains. I have no standing or authority to attract attention to the new perspective. Journals don't like this anymore than do Relativity believers.

            You must have one of the 25 books I actually sold about 13 years ago. The model is significantly upgraded away from Paeps. The push of gravity is from EM radiation (the medium of all space).

            My "Universe is Otherwise" model is a complete inverted view about the Universe. Nobody, including the people you listed, have any input to this model, and there were no external 'seeds '. Most of the revelations are scattered in my 22 papers in the General Science Journal.

            Combining with Einstein and having lines converging at a radius has no relation to anything in my model. For your guy who introduced something called 'induced gravity'. You say 'quantum mechanical interactions could be a source of curvature terms in the gravitational field.' This has no relative meaning to me. Is he one of the earlier philosophers who theorized a pushing gravity, going back to Newton's time. Their proposals died due to 3 major flaws that outcast any promoter of the idea. The answers were obvious 40 years ago.

            Paul Schroeder

            Sorry for the fact you got bombed...

            It was not me. I have noticed the bombers often wait for someone else to comment, because that person will be blamed. I have rated 0 papers so far. I usually read at least a dozen before I make any ratings. I passed that mark but have not read your paper yet, nor would I rate any papers without reading them entirely first.

            I abhor the shenanigans, and I try not to get drawn in to a ratings war scenario. I like to play it fair, and I don't think I've read a single essay that deserves a 1 or 2 grade, but I have received those ratings myself - judging by the difference before and after. If I say that I like some aspect of your work; you can rest assured you will be given a favorable grade.

            I would be happy to give you a more detailed evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of this particular essay - if you like. I thought your book did have some weak points, and it failed to acknowledge some prior work in that direction, but I chose to emphasize some of that above, and to list its strengths, as a kind of general assent that you were on the right track.

            Sorry for any confusion,

            Jonathan

            p.s. - you can verify with the FQXi admin that I have not rated your essay yet. - jjd

              P.S.

              I am behind in my reading right now Paul. I'm sorting things out because my Dad was one of the victims of the pandemic. He passed on Mar. 25th, just a day shy of his 88th birthday. Once I read your paper, and I promise I will; you'll get a fair grade from me.

              Best,

              JJD

              As to your model...

              If it is upgraded from the "Universe is otherwise" book I have on my shelf; I am eager to learn more about your work. You seem overly averse to the idea that people have a right to call you on 'reinventing the wheel' if there is other work that points in a similar direction though.

              The existence of other work by professional scientists that matches my research predictions or results is something I take some pride in. I figure maybe they are the ones who made a lucky guess and followed it through, while I have the true picture - at least some of the time.

              Perhaps in this case you got the right answer first, but were ignored. But many great discoveries or inventions have been birthed in more than one place at the same time. I note Galois and Abel in my essay. So don't assume that by comparing your stuff with some tired old ideas by Sakharov that I mean to insult you.

              All the Best,

              Jonathan

              Please have a look at:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation

              Best

              =snp

              Jonathan

              My goodness, am I out of bounds with my response to you. I am sorry for it. Now, with you clarifying things about the grade fog, I realize that you did submit an especially charitable review of my paper. Then your follow up was tender when correcting my miss-understanding. I expect there are worthwhile points in your paper which I will soon read.

              Your mention of the 'quantum mechanical interactions' confused me until I was reminded that mechanical referred to pushing gravity itself. I had solved the issues stopping LeSage and Fatio theories. You will see that is a chapter in my book. Looking up the 'mechanical' term also reveals Tom Van Flanders and Matthew Edwards, both of who I had numerous conversations with. Your name is vaguely familiar but not from CCC-2, perhaps the NPA or Meta Physics.

              The 'researchers pursuing my ideas -- in secret' is so seductive and so unlikely. Getting any feedback is unusual.

              The concept of bombers in the contest who intentionally drag down their competition is awful. They hurt grading but cannot stop useful detailed evaluation of other's works. Criticism can be constructive and lead to interchanges, possibly ours.

              Your loss of your father before his time is a tragic result of this awful virus scorching the world. I am sorry for you.

              Best wishes

              Paul Schroeder

                We can only use the time we have...

                I got to meet Tom Van Flandern only a month or so before his demise, and he appeared in perfect health at the time. There was a fair amount of discussion about FTL gravity and the evidence for it, at that time, with the final proof or disproof resting on future evidence.

                Much to learn before we know...

                All the Best,

                Jonathan