A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy by Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

The above post is related to my essay, so I am replying here.....

Dear Terry,

Thank you for your very detailed reply again.

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

Thank you for such kind words after me providing a fairly tough review! You are a good person, and I too am delighted by meeting folks like you and other here.

I like your point that the greatest value of FQXi is the interaction, not the prizes. If someone gets an FQXi prize... well celebrate! Great gravy train in the morning, why should you not? But if you don't get an FQXi prize after putting in so much work... well, meh, is it really that big of a deal?

........................ Yes sir , Is that prize is really Great Gravy Train is it? May be for people like me in India, we are poor in general, but for American and other Europeans or Australians or even to Chinese, it is not much, They are already rich. I think most of the people want to know the opinion on their new thinking or new paper Published before or will publish after the contest. Most probably to get a positive or Negative feedback on their theories.

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

While FQXi admirably attempts to probe a bit deeper than many groups, it is by its very nature also very deeply intertwined with the "standard" perspectives of physics, which as I noted shows up in some of its prize assessments. And that affects how seriously individuals should take its assessments...................

There can be some HIDDEN agenda's , No body can say, Someone external to FQXi can influence them. For accepting essays and allowing open discussions on the essays shows that they are open to all theories; not only just for the "the standard theories". Ok that much is allowed for me, thanks to them !!!

I dont expect much. I faced much more harsher situations in my life. Nothing matters now.

I will continue..........

thank you for your interest in my essay

Best Regards

=snp

Dear Terry

2.

I am continuing my reply........

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

We are speaking here of a broader research community that for the past half century has been betting the majority of its theoretical money and researcher careers (whether the researchers wanted it or not) on the idea of Planck-scale superstrings .........................

correct please. All such situations I pointed out in my essay , there were many situations when the Professor or the Finance provider will say some of their pet topic, and the young researchers are forced for that line. Will all that leads to real good research? There is a more appropriate term in engineering called "Project development". Project is conceived by someone else, this may be true for an engineering plant.

Best regards

=snp

Dear Terry,

3.

...........................Your words................... All of that work has now been soundly shown to be irrelevant by the superb experimental data from the HAWC Consortium, which showed that tiny Planck-scale superstrings -- which from the very first paper were an enormous and very weakly justified leap of faith from quite real hadronic Regge strings -- are far too huge and gloppy to meet the experimentally verified constraints of poor old special relativity no less... the delightfully simple Poincare/Lorentz/Einstein/Minkowski symmetries that were first postulated over a century ago, back when even calculators were mechanical only ..................................

Yes Situations happened in like that Bigbang based cosmologies, they did not with stand testing. Bigbang generated CMB is one example, it was never found. If you calculate the radiation from stars,nebulae,Galaxies and other astronomical objects, that is exactly what measured by COBE satellite, COBEs aperture is so big it can not isolate these other radiation. Noble prizes are awarded for such work.

So what we can say? The thing is people still publish my work. All my CMB papers were published long back. See my blog for details.....

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

Best regards

=snp

Dear Terry,

4.

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

From that costly little half-century faux pas alone (there have been other analytical strategy missteps), I think it's safe to say that the track record in modern physics for assessing and predicting which ideas will truly become the future of physics has been... well, somewhat less than stellar? Instead, it was instead those amazing mathematicians (Poincare especially) and physicists from over a century ago, the ones who had minimal tools, simple ideas, and an absolute acceptance of the need for experimental validation of everything they did, who even now, over a century later, are proving to have been the true prophets for predicting where physics must go in the future. of Sweden, was the great inspiration for my work 40 years back

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

Poincare the court mathematician of king OSCAR2 of Sweden who attempted the the tough problem of solving general N-Body problem. I liked him! He was my inspiration.

This Dynamic Universe Model is the solution to the General N-body problem. This is model tested for 2 body, 3 body, 5 body, 132 bodies, even 25000 bodies. The 132 body problem solution is used from the last 40 years,using Lotus 123 on floppies to Later present day Microsoft Excel.

Basic Idea here is, any body having a small PC with simple Excel, should reproduce the results as given in published papers or books. All the software source code is available for a free download form my webpage....

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

The main Software was NEVER changed BUT ported from generation to generation of Lotus123 and Excel. Only simple house hold PCs will be sufficient. This 132 body problem solution gave solution all these problems solved for the last 40 years. Many papers were published, Books were published and predictions came true.....

But what I got is kicks on my back......

Best regards

=snp

Dear Terry

5.

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

And an addendum: I was serious in my comment above about century-old simplicity still being predictive of where physics must head in the future. For example, the recent HAWC Collaboration data seems to imply that special relativity is never violated. So why not make this into a fundamental hypothesis? That is, what would be the full implications to physics and mathematics of hypothesizing that at their deepest roots both are based not on Euclidean spaces, but on Minkowski spaces? ......................

Dynamic Universe Model uses Euclidean spaces and Galilean Transformations, but not Minkowski spaces. Here in this model, space is space and time is time. No inter-dependencies between axes. All are linear and mutually exclusive....

This simple system solved all these problems. This system was thought formed frame work in the beginning of 1980 or so

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

That may sound easy, or even "of course" like what we are already doing, but I assure you it is not. For survival purposes our brains are hardwired to think in terms of Euclidean spaces, and those are at best narrow, local-only, and unavoidably approximate subsets of the Minkowski spaces of special relativity.

Well said!

Best Regards

=snp

Dear Terry,

6.

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

For example, the recent HAWC Collaboration data seems to imply that special relativity is never violated.

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

In the post above number 5, I just forgot to mention about Special Relativity.

In some of the simulation of Dynamic Universe Model, I found that light goes faster than 300000 km / sec some times. That was in line some experimental results....

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

Taking Poincare symmetries as a starting point would require us to abandon the primacy of Euclidean spaces. But to take the idea to its logical limit, this would need to apply not just to physics, but to the mathematics we use to describe physics. That is because the Euclidean concepts that we toss about so freely and without thought in mathematical fields and such are necessary approximations created by the hard-wiring of our brains to take advantage of the narrow, low-energy environment in which we must think quickly to survive. So just how radical might such a transformation be?

.................... I don't know, Dynamic Universe Model, uses Euclidean spaces, only those experts who used Poincare symmetries can say about that.

Best

=snp

Dear Terry

7.

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

One impact is much of the mathematics of physics would suddenly and necessarily become part of a much broader context, since any Euclidean space -- even those implied by simple arrays of numbers in a computer -- would be newly understood as local-only approximates of some much larger Minkowski space, one that only looks Euclidean to our small-scale, limited-range, biologically enforced perceptions. If you play with such ideas seriously for a while, you will discover they are a bit mind-bending. Minkowski himself glimpsed this a century ago in his famous talk on the merger of space and time into a single entity. Yet even Minkowski struggled with the idea a bit, as seen in the infinities that creep into his discussion of how to define Euclidean space as a limit Minkowski space.

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

I dont think so, There is no evidence that larger scales are non Euclidean.

There is no harm in using Euclidean spaces in large scale.

Why space time continuum is required at all???

Best

=snp

Dear Vladimir,

Cpasiba vam balshoya, glya vas post , ya zabil Rusci yazik, ya bil va kiev glya 6 myasas in 1982.... I am sorry for many mistakes.

Being a mechanical engineer, you wrote such a wonderful essay, my congratulations

Thank you for picturesque essay, easily understandable. I gave the best ratings just now for your wonderful essay,I saw you have developed wonderful applications even....Please check you mail, we will be corresponding on quantum mechanics. See my blog for further details of my papers please....

' http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/2018/ '

Best

=snp

Dear Prof Pavel Poluyan and Dmitry Lichargin,

Thank you for wonderful words and liking my essay. I also liked essay, I think mine was first comment on your essay about a month back.

We will be contacting by mail. I set a mail, please check

Best

=snp

Dear Neil Bates,

Thank you for really critically studying my essay. I am working on this Dynamic Universe Model for the Last 40 years. Its many predictions came true and it solved many unsolved problems in Cosmology and astrophysics. It was my experience what i wrote in my essay. Though may be Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability are related to quantum physics, but these qualities are frequently seen in other parts of Physics also like Cosmology and Computer sciences.

This essay and Dynamic Universe Model does not go into quantum Physics.

Usage of Imaginary numbers practically gave many times confusing results, non achievable or realizable view points and difficult to digest statements.

How will you represent an imaginary axes perpendicular to time axis????

And a question for you, can you please tell me how these imaginary numbers are useful in quantum physics....???

Best

=snp

Dear nancy walters,

I am replying here to both of your observations. Your nice words ..............I agree with you in that a predictable universe is safer. I do look at weather reports often. I'm very grateful to know if it will rain tomorrow, or to know if an astroid is heading our way, or to know if a tsunami is heading our way. Predictability is valued

....................... I think the predictability depends on how well you take all the factors of nature or Physics and depends on how well you model the situation, mathematics is used for describing physics, but not the other way round.....

Your nice words......................

However my point is that it is not absolute. Predictability is based on probability. A 40% chance of rain tomorrow tells you the odds are it will not rain. But it could. Our universe is predictable to a point. But it's that point that keeps it from being predictable, computable and decided. There is always an unknown factor that can disrupt the system.

................... That is not correct. Newtonian Physics, Cosmology or Engineering does not depend on Probability, Quantum Physics works on probability. I dont know exactly about equations and physical factors used for making weather reports. it is entirely different science. .....

Your nice Observation here.................. I agree with you, the simplest answer is usually the correct answer and integrity is important in all pursuits. I also agree with you that new theories should stimulate and inspire thought.

................. Thank you for agreeing!

Your nice words here...................

But why no black holes, why no worm holes? Why no big bang,

.............. Because these are having infinities. Physics CAN not have any infinity, because it is physically existing.

Your nice words here...................

why no repulsion between distant bodies?

................... It is not required here in Dynamic Universe Model. In Newtonian Static universe all bodies will collapse into a lump due to gravitation. But Dynamic Universe model proves that when a set of bodies are allowed on SELF gravitation they will start rotating about each other and don't collapse. Probably in some Universe Models like Bigbang model it is required to assume that distant Galaxies move away from each other. Bigbang model ignores existence of Blue shifted Galaxies

Lets discuss any further of your observations...

Best regards

=snp

This is regarding Dynamic Universe Model, so I copied this podst here

Author Malcolm Riddoch replied on May. 20, 2020 @ 03:35 GMT

Hi snp,

and yes no fear, I rated your essay on May 12!

As for your Dynamic Universe Model, well there's a lot of fundamental concepts there! For me, starting from my fundamental concept of fundamental conceptual indeterminacy I can only say that I agree with 'dynamis' as a fundamental concept and all that it implies.

Dynamis as pure potentiality from which constantly emerges actuality/enargeia with entelecheia as its organizing principle is, again for me, at the centre of the ever-changing essence of an observer dependent universe.

What comes to presence and what leaves, in its becoming and constant dissolution, what is / what it gives comes from nowhere and nowhere does it go, thus time and its spatiality and all things are in flux/dynamis.

Which is to say the wave function of the universe is pure potentiality from which this humble sub-system is constantly evolving in a reflection of that potentiality as the actuality of its observable universe. And I think it's that dynamic moment of actualisation--the observer's 'phenomenal experience'--that is the crux of this entelecheiac matter!

Wheeler saw the general picture decades ago, but the mathematical formalists are still largely stuck in their early modern classical delusions. I'm interested in how we might construct a semantic bridge between that old classical world and the quantum world picture that is slowly forming on the horizon of our collective understanding. And so your own stirring of that pot here on FQXi is also very much to the point!

Dear Prof. Malcolm Riddoch

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

and yes no fear, I rated your essay on May 12!..................

Thank you , What ever it may be, It is your frank opinion on my essay.

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

As for your Dynamic Universe Model, well there's a lot of fundamental concepts there! For me, starting from my fundamental concept of fundamental conceptual indeterminacy I can only say that I agree with 'dynamis' as a fundamental concept and all that it implies............................

Wonderful sir, thank you..............

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

Dynamis as pure potentiality from which constantly emerges actuality/enargeia with entelecheia as its organizing principle ..................

Here entelecheia is UGF, the Universal Gravitational force which is the vectorial resultant gravitational forces acting on any mass by all the bodies in the universe. This UGF is is not a constant forces, but varies with time and position of mass in space. This is the cause of the movement of the mass under consideration.

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

is, again for me, at the centre of the ever-changing essence of an observer dependent universe.............

The view of the Universe changes dynamically due to movement of masses caused by gravitation,and gravitation is the main force that causes all these movements.

Our Universe is not observer dependent , but it is observer independent. For every person the macro cosmological universe looks same.

I will continue....

Best

=snp

Dear Prof. Malcolm Riddoch

You wrote a thought Provoking reply, wonderful....!!!

2.

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

What comes to presence and what leaves, in its becoming and constant dissolution, what is / what it gives comes from nowhere and nowhere does it go, thus time and its spatiality and all things are in flux/dynamis...............

Wow wonderful definition, This Universe is always Dynamically moving. This Dynamism Is the center point of all the processes, correctly said...........

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

Which is to say the wave function of the universe is pure potentiality from which this humble sub-system is constantly evolving in a reflection of that potentiality as the actuality of its observable universe. .....................

You mean the view is different after the after the boundaries of observable Universe according to your words ' this humble sub-system is constantly evolving in a reflection of that potentiality as the actuality of its observable universe '?????????.

So if you use a bigger telescope, the diameter of the Observable Universe Increases, and you will see a different view ??????????????????

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

And I think it's that dynamic moment of actualisation--the observer's 'phenomenal experience'--that is the crux of this entelecheiac matter!

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

So for one observer the Astrophysical view of the sky is different to another observer.... you mean to say? I dont think sky looks different to different people.

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

Wheeler saw the general picture decades ago, but the mathematical formalists are still largely stuck in their early modern classical delusions. I'm interested in how we might construct a semantic bridge between that old classical world and the quantum world picture that is slowly forming on the horizon of our collective understanding. And so your own stirring of that pot here on FQXi is also very much to the point!

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

Dynamic Universe Model takes and solves this Astronomical Universe as an N-Body Problem solution. I dont know much about quantum mechanics....

questions are.........

1. Will this quantum mechanics be solved as another N-body problem solution

.....???

2. What are the fundamental forces acting between particles? Gravitation? Electrical Charges? Magnetic forces? Forces due to s,p,d,f levels???

3. Or it is combination of of these????

4. Will these forces be same in solids, liquids, Gasses or in eather or Vacuum....

Can you pleas tell me?

Best

=snp