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

Gupta,

I am pleased to see your continuation toward a paradigm shift.

As you may recall we communicated multiple times during the foundation contest and I have your Frequency Shifting papers. It seems that you and I are the only cosmologists with full blown theories addressing the many flaws in the theories in use today. You have your Dynamic Universal Model and I have my Universe is Otherwise model. I do have a couple of comments about your current paper and your main-points paper.

I will provide more details but first I mention our major differences. We disagree about the nature of space including your accepting a closed universe, rather than accepting infinity of space. You had called my infinite universe as 'really good'. Likewise your continuing acceptance of expansion seems odd. As light is a real thing, it becomes obvious that gravity ultimately must affect light's velocity, thus causing red shifts (refer to the Pound-Rebka experiments). Light flows as if beams and assigning it a fixed speed of c is to blame for the 'standard model'. Light is an EM radiation and some frequency of radiation penetrates everything. So EM radiation is the medium of space and provides gravity by pushing. Likewise, the Newton laws require 'no friction in space' which is invalid and so the drive of orbitals provided by bent radiation flow remains overlooked. Newton knew that. Thus rotations provide revolutions of other bodies.

I really admire your work. If your views ultimately come around to include my ideas, I would honor your professionalism, continuing commitment, and leadership, traits which I don't have. Thus I suggest you should take the paradigm lead and I would be happy to include my work as additions to your work.

Please respond and I will continue with points about your current paper here.

Congratulation on the activity.

Paul Schroeder

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta, I really like your model of the dynamic Universe, but why don't you like my neocartesian generalization of modern physics? After all, when Copernicus noticed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, he lost sight of the fact that with it all the circumsolar space (ether) revolves around him. Electromagnetic waves are also oscillations of space (ether), which we do not see, but feel in the form of heat or light. Descartes has ether as matter! I hope that the neocartesian generalization of modern physics will find understanding in India.

I invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of space and matter of Descartes: "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich 禄

聽聽聽聽聽聽At the very beginning of the essay, I repeat twice the idea that rectilinear motion, in essence, is a motion around a circle of infinitely large radius and, if this radius is reduced, then in infinitesimal laws of motion according to the theory of relativity will go over to the laws of quantum mechanics. Next come mathematical formulas that only spoil my essay, but without them in any way. I will be pleased if you catch their main meaning and bless me for the further generalization of modern physics. I give high ratings to those who visit my page and leave her comment on it regarding the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, even if they did not agree.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta, many thanks for your comment on my essay. I try not to think about black holes, but they make themselves felt as positive charges in the center of vortices (particles). Some researchers argue that based on the recognized parameters of the universe, it turns out that we live in a black hole. I add that this black hole is crushed into small pieces that are located in the centers of everything that rotates. From this the whole world and we ourselves are so active.

It's easy to read your essay, all the "NOs" are collected in one table, I carefully looked through them and found that they do not contradict the neocartesian generalization of modern physics. Further development of cosmology is possible only on the basis of your dynamic model of the Universe with the addition of the fact that nature does not tolerate emptiness, i.e. it must be filled with matter that creates space, and there are no dark matter, dark energy, big bang, multiverses, etc.

I wish you all the best, and accordingly give a rating.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Dear Satyavarapu Thanks for your update on the " Dynamic Universe Model". In my essay, I introduced a new model for the creation of the universe. Once the universe is created it operates analogously to your description in the "Dynamic Universe Model" with its Energy Matter cycling and multigenerational solar systems, galaxies, etc.. A major difference is that it does have black holes and dark matter as components of the circulating processing. My essay also introduces a new lower "fundamental" level of creation. These fundamentals scale up to become the math, processing and measurements of the visible universe and its major components. These fundamentals are a progression from an all chaotic changing to a sequenced, ordered changing to an overall unchanging - every component is changing eternally cycling result. It converts chaos to the order of the universe. These scaled up fundamentals produce what we measure in the universe. My hope is that you will see if these ideas can be added to your work to get a more complete theory. I would appreciate your comments. John D. Crowell

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

Thank you for directed me to your essay, and for your feedback to mine.

I read your essay with interest, because it shows great optimism and expectations about the possibilities of science. I liked the list of undesirable qualities. I think with A1-A5 most will agree in theory, even though in practice people make mistakes. I expect that many people in quantum mechanics would disagree with A6, since they think it's necessary to use complex numbers in quantum mechanics. You said well that this hides the meaning of the result. I started writing a paper some time ago, which I interrupted, but I plan to go back to it, where I show that there are no imaginary numbers in quantum theory, but it stands for something that hase geometric and physical meaning. It's not a reinterpretation, it is the correct interpretation which was overlooked from the beginning. So, although many of my colleagues think that "i" is an essential difference between quantum and classical, I have a different opinion, and I agree with your A6. I also liked your desirables in section B. Section C seems too hard for me to understand, so I have no comments about it, except that I wish you success to go through the right channels with your dynamics. And success with this contest!

Cheers,

Cristi

Dear Mr Gupta,

I think you should be commended for setting out a set of principles to guide theory. I suspect there will be much debate about some of them. But debate advances science.

I wish you success in promoting your ideas.

Dear Naga Parameswara Gupta,

Guidelines for theory and modeling is warranted, especially elimination of bias and agenda-based research and modeling. Visiting your website, I find your theory of interest but requiring more study. It takes courage to openly oppose a prevailing theory such as the Big Bang. It is good to keep an open mind, even about your own pursuits. That is true science. Hopefully, you will get a chance to read my essay.

Jim Hoover

Hi Satyavarapu...

In that my essay explicitly request my readers' assessment of my application of Absolute Intelligence, as modeled therein, to a logic evaluation criteria for my essay, your thoughtful review of my essay is greatly appreciated,

By your assessment of my essay as "very logical", I am encouraged in my application of UQS mechanix to establishing verifiable communication with Absolute Intelligence... but I am notoriously incorrigible.

I have now read your essay, and as a discussion of principles for reality models, it is highly relevant.

However, a conclusion predicated on principle must adhere to principle, and be consistent with all other such conclusions.

Your conclusion that there is a "force behind expansion of universe" has historically triggered the "something from nothing" rejection of the model... i.e. "Creation" implies a Logic Singularity.

Time-Space Energy as Cause's feeling of now, is indicative of a Logic Singularity... i.e. a feeling requires no Space, and now requires no Time.

REF Graphic Illustration: Cause Energy Pulsed Emergence as Space-Time Energy http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg

To facilitate an Origin Logic singularity in a Space-Time Energy Reality model, UQS implements additional criteria:

- The emission and subsequent distribution mechanix of a postulated/theorized Space-Time Energy Reality model, shall comply to the CAD geometry environment upon which the theory is established.

What is the CAD environment geometry of the Dynamic Universe Model (DUM)?

... the structural geometry encapsulating a point source emergence IS a spatial singularity for directionally unbiased distribution of Space-Time Energy

... a Cartesian and/or Radian geometry does not facilitate a point source pulsed emergence of spatially defined minimum/indivisible Quanta of Energy (QE) without introducing perturbation in all subsequent analysis... i.e. the math becomes" uncomputable".

- A theorized Space-Time Energy Reality model, shall differentiate Quantum Energy (QE) from Phenomenal Energy (PHE).

What minimum icon/sprite of spatially defined Energy (QE), experiences a Space-Time differential, in an emergence SIM within the DUM CAD geometry environment?

... if the CAD geometry quantization does not establish a structurally uniform spatial occupancy for Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy to emerge as Space-Time Energy in a Space-Time Energy Reality, one can not differentiate a minimum Quantum of Energy (QE) from Phenomenal Energy (PHE)

... observations of Phenomenal Energy (PHE)... i.e. observed event of a QE's experience of a Space-Time differential... and subsequent analysis/quantification is inherently perturbative

I agree that enhanced computer computational skills can resolve perceptual limitations, and In that jayanti V S Murty wrote on Mar. 3, 2020 @ 07:10 GMT... that you are "developing a software for solving the problems of cosmology", it is highly predictable that you "will emerge as one of the leading stalwarts in the field".

Does the DUM CAD/SIM app utilize a cross platform 3D graphic engine... e.g. OpenGL?

Thanks again for justifying my obsession to verify a connection with the Cosmic Consciousness Computer (CCC://)... and yes a flip a coin was utilized as the only logic evaluate criteria for each of the above statements.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com