DYNAMIC UNIVERSE MODEL: 2014-12-28

All these Things Happened as I submitted a paper on New Horizons Satellite (NH) trajectory predictions upto 2017.

I am giving the comments by the reviewers and my replies as it is they do all these just for REJECTING paper ....

Reviewer#1

He feels that Dynamic Universe model should NOT solve other problems…other than NH

Reviewer#2

In the derivation of Dynamic Universe model, for to understand the derivation, "systems", "ensembles", "aggregates", "conglomerations” are required. He says such wisdom is not required. I kept that derivation as guided by Dr Pascal Willis, its chief editor. They first guide you to some thing, and after doing it they will reject it on that basis .......

Reviewer#3

He is the worst of all. He says why mass is needed for NH? This gentleman dont even know the Newtons laws. His own words….

1. )

“mass of NH satellite: the mass of an object has no influence on it's own dynamic, so I don't see the point of taking the mass of New Horizons into account if you only consider gravitational forces.”

- How can he say that? ( F = G. m1.m2 / r² ) is the Newton’s law of Gravitation. How come mass is not necessary when only Gravitational forces are considered even when Dynamics are considered ?

I sincerely feel that a Reviewer for your journal should know at least Newton’s law of Gravitation. If you feel otherwise it is your decision.

2. )

He just blamed me that the journal ‘Applied Physics Research’ which published my papers is in “Beall's List of Predatory Publishers 2013”

- But in the “Beall's List of Predatory Publishers 2013” under ‘LIST OF STANDALONE JOURNALS’ names of journals which published my papers were NOT THERE as on today 25 Dec, 2014, including journal ‘Applied Physics Research’. See their web:

http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/

I felt that they criticized as though they have an intention to reject the paper.

Most of the objections given by reviewers were answered by me in earlier papers. I am giving whole conversation below.

There are many misunderstandings also. (My answers are in red.) Most of the comments were related to earlier papers.

Best Regards

=snp

============================

Comments and My answers

============================

Reviewer #1:

The paper "Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite up to start of 2017 and predictions are compared with NH official web results", by SNP GUPTA, used the Dynamic Universe Model to predict the trajectory of the New Horizons spacecraft from 3rd Jan 2009 to 1st Jan 2017. He uses the trajectory ephemerides data from the NASA´s official web of the spacecraft as basis.

- Just for comparison. The predictions of Dynamic Universe model are given

I think the paper is not clear enough for publication and many points needs to be better explained.
It starts with o good language review.

- My English is corrected

I can see several errors, including in the abstracts.
But I have more serious objections. Most of the basis of the paper is not explained, and is based in books that I do not have.

- Not many are on books; I can send books free of cost to somebody who wants them.

I think that more details should be provided about the Dynamic Universe Model.
Some points are:
1) Why the errors in the X directions are much larger than in the other directions?

- These are predictions from Dynamic Universe Model, NASA’s predictions failed in case of Pioneer Anomaly. That we know very well. For e.g., see “ New Horizons and the Onset of the Pioneer Anomaly” by Michael Martin Nieto

2) The results seems to be less accurate than the ephemerides (see the numbers in the abstracts). If this is true, why to use the proposed method?

- By the way, I think your words “results seems” is not grammatically correct, it is better to use “results seem”. They are Dynamic Universe Models predictions. It is more accurate, and earlier methods failed on Pioneer anomaly.

3) The second paragraph of page 3 is very unclear to me. The sentence needs to be rewritten.

- English corrections made, rewritten.

4) In the same page, what is the meaning of "inter-intra-galaxy tautness and attraction forces"?

- It’s a name chosen for that computer program. It means internal and external forces on / in a Galaxy. These forces can be centrifugal of centripetal forces. ( By the way, you mean I have to explain everything in every paper is it? Then every paper will become size of 3 or 4 books.) Please see the reference of earlier papers published for further explanations.

5) In page 4, what are the effects of the "nucleonic pulse device"? Can you explain what is that?

- It is with reference to Pioneer Anomaly. Please see that paper.

6) What is the advantage of removing singularities, if there the spacecraft does not cross the atmosphere of the planet to reach a singularity?

- Singularities are un-defined mathematical entities. No physical properties are defined for them. According to Bigbang based cosmologies they can exist anywhere, e.g., in a star, Sun, Galaxy or in solar system. There are no undefined situations here.

7) Page 6, line 3: Why the velocities are not very important? They are part of the initial conditions. They are expected to be very important.

- Velocities were also important, they were taken care by the Dynamic Universe Model. Initial positions and velocities were taken as initial condition, after few iterations Dynamic Universe model will calculate all the velocities for the bodies. Probably there is confusion.

8) What do you mean by "never reduces to General relativity"?

- Earlier some people asked me this question, who did not understand the math here. I just kept the stated that point, before somebody else asks the same question

9) What do you mean by "micro world"? (page 6, line 32)

- The particles like protons, electrons, photons and neutrinos etc., a higher set of quantum physics particles. Please see the VLBI paper for further details.

10) I do not see what is in the paper besides integration of the N-body problem. What is the real contribution of the paper?

- It explains trajectory of NH, It considers the Pioneer Anomaly of NH also automatically.

11) Regarding the problem of the anomaly of the trajectories of the Pionner, it was apparently solved in the paper "Physical Review Letters, 107 (8), 2012" and it has nothing to do with gravity.

- A good discussion on Pioneer anomaly was given in the Pioneer Anomaly problem paper. You can have a look at it, it is freely downloadable from net.

12) The relation with the "blue galaxies" are not well explained.

- The same mathematical model can solve that problem and predicts Blue shifted Galaxies in the expanding Universe, for which Bigbang based Cosmologies, have no explanation. The same algorithm will work from Particles, Solar system level problems to Cosmological problems.

Based in the above points, I think that the paper should be rejected in the present form

- You mean Dynamic Universe Model should not solve other problems??

----------------

Reviewer #2:

Review of manuscript ASR-D-14-00649 by reviewer ??
„Dynamic Universe Model predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite up to start of 2017 and predictions are compared with NH official web results"
SNP.Gupta

Review by Reviewer-2

I recommend outright rejection of the article. From my perspective, it does not meet the scientific standards of the journal „Advances in Space Research". I add a few remarks to substantiate my assessment. The list could be made much longer.

Remarks

* The topic is not really a science issue: the generation of the orbits of minor planets, comets, space vehicle over a few years is a routine problem, today (except for a few issues like fly-by anomalies, Pioneer anomalies).

- This is a fly-by anomaly / Pioneer anomaly problem solution. This paper predicts into future up to 2017

* The comparison of orbits calculated with a particular tool (in this case the so-called Dynamic Universe Model) with information taken from the internet is not of general interest.

This is a fly-by anomaly / Pioneer anomaly problem solution.

* For a sound comparison of ephemerides I would expect a clear definition of the force field, in particular a list of the gravitational and the non-gravitational forces. In the specific example one might expect solar radiation pressure to play a role.

- Vak 24-12-2014 : This is a valid point. Check the trajectory after TCM4 correction after 2010 June 30, in NH trajectory. I did not take the external trajectory correction due to radiation pressure (?).

* As opposed to that one finds unnecessary information for the purpose of the investigation: remarks about the general theory of relativity, about dark matter, about blue shifts of galaxies, etc. document the author's preferences, but they are irrelevant for the generation of a space craft's trajectory over a few years.

- Vak 24-12-2014 : Ok those information will be removed.

* The so-called pioneer anomaly is an interesting, widely discussed issue in science. The reviewed article contains the key word, but does not contribute in any sense to this topic.

- Vak 24-12-2014 : ok will be added.

* A similar remark could be made for fly-by anomalies.

- Vak 24-12-2014 : ok will be added

* An investigation of scientific interest should be based on observations, in the particular case on the data of JPL/NASA's DSN.

- Vak 24-12-2014 : There are no separate observations available except NASA

* I also could imagine that the author might use the NH ephemerides as pseudo-observations. Such an experiment might at least reveal the deficiencies of the force field (whether or not this would be an issue of broad scientific interest can be left open).

- Why NH ephemerides as pseudo-observations? They are officially given by NASA. You mean NASA publishes the NH ephemerides as pseudo-observations, please clarify…

* Statements like "just considering gravitation of the Sun alone is not correct" are trivial. But this is really not an issue in the 21st century. The remark on page 17, line 56, either shows that the NH ephemerides either were only very approximate (in which case they would not qualify as a worthwhile reference) or that the NH ephemerides were not understood properly.

- A correct observation was given. What is the misunderstanding / mistake done by me here? The ephemerides were changed from earlier to present publication. Both the cases are available with you. Please tell me what to do for improving my understanding here.

* The author distinguishes between "systems", "ensembles", "aggregates", "conglomerations". Such categories may be of interest in the context of a hierarchical N-body problem. For the issue of the article such wisdom is not required.

- When I removed the whole derivation and kept only equation 25 as the whole derivation was available in already published papers, Dr Pascal Willis objected it. Saying this paper will appear as though it is application of equation 25. In reality also it is correct.

So when kept it as it is, paper was rejected by reviewer. To understand the derivation, "systems", "ensembles", "aggregates", "conglomerations” are required.

Do you feel it is correct to blame me for this???

* The style of writing is, at times, very confusing. Statements like (p 1, line 41 ff)

- When read some published papers by some Russian / German authors, the published translations are very difficult to understand. Yes I am from a country where English is not mother tongue for any native state in India. If you clarify the confusions you felt, I will correct them.

* "It may please be noted the error percentage in predictions went to a maximum of 2921080.05877 km for X, 41406.22786 , km for Y and -82223.98208 km for Z or in error percentages 0.239356 %, -0.00086751 %, -0.0493872 % compared with NH web for the same date in XYZ coordinates, where as error percentages started from -0.00225 %, 0.000159 %, -0.00029 % for XYZ coordinates respectively."
simply cannot be understood and/or require a lot of guesswork from the reader. Probably the author means something like
- Vak 24-12-2014 : Was replaced, second part of the phrase was removed

Also:
* as indicated, it does not make sense to give as many digits for differences (errors?) of this order of magnitude (even the number of digits provided in my version is VASTLY exaggerated).

- Vak 24-12-2014 : Was corrected

* The order of magnitude difference between the differences in x on one hand and in y & z on the other hand seems to indicate that, at the time of the comparison, x corresponded probably more or less to the along track direction, y to the radial, and z to out of plane component. The comparison in x, y, and z is just not helpful for orbit comparisons.

- Vak 24-12-2014 : What should be compared?

----------------

Reviewer #3:

Summary and Results:
The goal of this paper is to present a prediction of the trajectory of the probe New Horizons using a dynamical model called Dynamic Universe Model. After a presentation of the New Horizons mission and trajectory in the Solar System, The Dynamical Universe Model is presented. This model is a "cosmological" model based on Newton's equations of motion whose main result is that the Dark matter problem just comes from a poor calculation of the expected velocity of stars.

- This Dynamic Universe Model is not just only a Cosmological model, but it can solve solar system level, Galaxy level problems. It is N-body problem solution.

Then, the basis of the model is presented, that is a demonstration of the Viriel theorem in an N-bodies problem and that the total potential felt by a particle is the sum of the individual potential caused by each mass of the system. In the end, the obtained positions and velocities obtained for New Horizons are presented.
- Viriel theorem can be derived from Dynamic Universe Model, see Corollary 1.
Evaluation of the article:
Staying focused on the New Horizons aspect of the paper, the author presents the calculus of the trajectory of the probe using basis Newton dynamics. No non-gravitational effect is ever taken into account,

- In this Dynamic Universe Model Non Gravitational effects can be taken. But in this paper only gravitational effects were taken.

- A trajectory correction TCM4 was done on NH on 30 June 2010, which was not taken into account

and several incorrect assumptions are made concerning the way the JPL and the team responsible for the probe navigation estimate the trajectory.

- Please tell me what are the incorrect assumptions that were made in Dynamic Universe model

As such, the interest of the calculus described here is dubious.

- Why the calculus here is dubious ???

Moreover, the interest of making this trajectory estimation is never clearly stated: is it a way to test the dynamical model used? can it explain trajectory anomalies (considering the fact that, to my knowledge, there is no evidence of anomaly in the probe trajectory)?

- Please have a look at the paper to refresh your knowledge title “New Horizons and the Onset of the Pioneer Anomaly” by Michael Martin Nieto , Theoretical Division (MS-B285), Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, U.S.A. Email: mmn@lanl.gov

Focusing on the galactic model (a cosmological model, by definition, being a model that describes the behavior of the whole universe) used here to predict the trajectory of a probe in the Solar System, I can only doubt the relevance of this article.

- Please give me a reference where Dynamic Universe model is defined like that. Wrong and biased assumption please.

We use different models for the modeling of the motion of objects depending on the scale because of computer limitations (mostly loss of precision), so I seriously doubt that an Excel program can overcome this kind of difficulties.

- Please have a look at the accuracies of Excel, it gives 15 digits accuracies, range is 10⁺³⁰⁷ to 10^-308, If this is insufficient, please let me know. We can use double precision accuracies which 31 digits accuracy. You can tell me where you have to use more accuracy than these… I hope you are knowledged in what you are accusing.

Moreover, the articles cited as references for this model come from a journal that is not referenced in ADS and whose editor appear on Beall's List of Predatory Publishers 2013.

- This is a serious blame. In the “Beall's List of Predatory Publishers 2013” under ‘LIST OF STANDALONE JOURNALS’ names of journals which published my papers were NOT THERE as on today 25 Dec, 2014. See their web

http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/

I cannot seriously think that a model which is supposed to describe the motion of stars in the Galaxy can be readily used for predicting the motion of a probe in the Solar System.

- Yes sir, this paper is one proof. Your doubts are baseless. Please go through mathematical section. Math is simple. You already mentioned that much wisdom need not be given.

Concerning the writing, the comprehension that a reader can have from the paper is made difficult by the writing and I can only advice the writer to search for the help of a native English-speaker to correct the writing of his article if he wants to submit again. At last, there is no clear logical structure in this paper, Tables of results are presented in the Introduction, the scientific goal of the paper is hardly ever presented...

- To get a glimpse of the results I gave the hint of results in the introduction section. I am retired person from a steel plant, I need some help in editing if possible.

Recommendation:
I do not recommend publication for the article, its very basis is doubtful, the goal unclear, and the results not significant, meaning that even major changes would not be enough.

Detailed comments:

Dear Sirs,
After the general comments that you can find in the previous sections, I will delve more with the details of the article itself. The page and line number that will appear are those of the file I have read.

I-Introduction
1.1 Using Dynamic Universe...
_evidence of the Pioneer anomaly is weaker and weaker(Turyshev et al. 2012), and so far, New Horizons has not suffered from it

_page 4, line 22: "Cartesian coordinates of xyz velocities", beside the redundancy between "Cartesian" and "xyz", I don't see how the velocity is needed for estimating gravitational interactions, same remark afterward

- Velocities are needed for Dynamical stability of the system.

_page 4, line 39: why do you use 1 day step? the reason is never clearly stated while the fact that it's between quotes seems to mean it is a significant fact

- Simple reason, NH ephemerides given by NASA are having 1 day step. I changed time step to 1 hour to see if we can find any difference, there is none. That’s it.

- Reason for quotes is that should not be mingled with text surrounding it. Nothing else it indicates.

_page 4, line 56: "the errors for the prediction of trajectory data is very less", do you mean "small"? and how small is it? we need at least the mean and standard deviation to get an idea

- They are small.

- Average or mean in error % , 0.14% for x, 0.01% for y and -0.0096% for z. Average or mean in KM 1137607.29561 KM for x, -402882.41039 KM for y and -13727.91649 KM for z

- Standard Deviations are 0.08% for x, 0.006% for y and 0.01% for z. Standard Deviations in Km are 959863.8267 km for x, 227192.2304 km for y and 15076.16673 km for z.

- ( 0.13717 0.01192 -0.00960 Average 1137607.29561 -402882.41039 -13727.91649

- 0.080755328 0.006301739 0.010047831 Standerd Dev 959863.8267 227192.2304 15076.16673)

_page 4, last lines: "As Dynamic Universe Model...": that is also the case for the more "classical" models, so I don't see how Dynamic Universe can be described as being "better" on this basis

- In the classical methods, they don’t consider the gravitational effect all the bodies simultaneously. There are many trail and errors we have to do for trajectory planning. Here all the effects like fly-byes and Pioneer anomaly effects are to be considered separately. Try to observe trajectory planning some time in a classical method, you can understand the difficulty. Always some planet position or some asteroid position will change. One has to start from the beginning again.

- But in Dynamic universe model trajectory planning is much simpler. You set up the sky for the time and date. Just change initial conditions like mass, initial xyz positions, initial velocities for the projectile or the test mass, the whole trajectory can be seen in all the four dimensions. It will be that simple.

_page 5: the description of the Table of results have nothing to do in the Introduction

- I just indicated the output. I will change.

_page 5, line 15: I don't really understand what SITA is, is it the name of the software that uses Dynamical Universe Model? is it some special sup-program?...

- Dynamic Universe Model is having many possible solutions. SITA software is one such possibility for giving solutions to this model. I tried many others.

_page 5, line 36: "nucleonic pulse device", I don't know what it refers to, and my search so far has been unfruitful

- These devices are used in Pioneer and NH and many other satellites by NASA

_page 5, line 39: "Main point left was like considering simultaneous and dynamical gravitation effects...", I'm not sure what you mean by this, do you mean that you consider that gravitation is not a propagating phenomenon, does it mean that you included or left out the influence of some planets, and in this case, which ones?

- Many other people worked about NH and Pioneer trajectory anomalies, here what I mean was they considered many other points for solving, but simultaneous gravitational effects other planets, stars etc were not considered on them.

- I never said consider that gravitation is not a propagating phenomenon

- I included the influence of all the planets, none was left.

2.New Horizons trajectory calculations
First line is a misunderstanding, the New Horizons trajectory is not calculated by fitting Chebychev polynomials. A dynamical model of the probe (which is usually the numerical integration of the equations of motion) is used to describe its position at the times of observations, the results are then compared with observations, and the model is fitted to reproduce the observations as well as possible. Then, the dynamical model obtained gives the positions and velocities of the probe at specific times that are the zero of Chebychev polynomials, hence allowing the trajectory to be computed again very quickly, instead of doing a long numerical integration, you just need to calculate a curve described by Chebychev polynomials. The degree of the polynomials chosen depends on the accuracy that is needed.

- I understood they use Chebychev polynomials; I did go into that detail. I will change text accordingly, Thank you.

2.1: New Horizons trajectory ephemerides given by:
I don"t really see the point for this paragraph. It gives details of the general way JPL produces DE planetary ephemerides, but the motion of the probe is most certainly not computed alongside those of the planets. So what is described in the paragraph is not directly related to the way New Horizons ephemerides is computed

- I will change text accordingly, Thank you.

3.Other results from Dynamic Universe Model:
I won't extend here my doubts about an Excel program used to describe a galactic model that is then used for the motion of a probe in the Solar System. This part consists largely of the applications of Dynamic Universe Model. It deals mostly with results presented in other papers, so it is not my role to question their results. Yet, the results presented here come from self-published books and articles published by Applied Physics Research, whose publishing house is of dubious reputation, and as such should not be presented here.

- ‘Applied Physics Research’ is not in the Beall’s List. There were other international journals also who published my other papers.

- That publisher publishes many journals, only two are ill-reputed as shown in that list. In the “Beall's List of Predatory Publishers 2013” under ‘LIST OF STANDALONE JOURNALS’ names of journals which published my papers were NOT THERE as on today 25 Dec, 2014. See their web

- http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/

3. The Mathematical formulations
I'll just collect a few remarks here, but they are of significant importance:
_You take into account the influence of other stars in your model, how is it relevant to the trajectory of New Horizons? Gravitation is a law proportional to square of the inverse of the distance, even Proxima Centaury has an influence far less significant than the uncertainty on the mass of the Sun

- You are thinking of one star and leaving behind the whole universe. Once consider whole universe there are significant changes. For the planets also you can think the same and leave them, you have seen what happens. That is why you are using so many round about methods for calculating approximate trajectories as you have described above.

_The whole "Ensemble-Aggregate-Conglomeration..." system is just a question of scale and has no significant importance.

- The "Ensemble-Aggregate-Conglomeration..." system is used describe and represent various subparts of the Universe. Universe is lumpy and has large voids. Everything is having influence.

- What you are considering is uniform density of matter for a next approximation, which is one step above Newtonian model as proposed by Einstein. But we land into mathematical singularities.

_The Greek letter Phi is said to describe a gravitational field, yet, in the following equations, is is obviously a potential, not a field

- I just used that letter that time

_We know nothing about the reference system considered: what are the center and frame?

- It can be anywhere, no problem. For that set of calculations for that whole setup there will be one ref point

_eq 5 and 6: problem with your potential, it's the derivative, alongside a direction, of a field that has to be considered, not the derivative of a field alongside a direction.

_eq 17: "PE"? I guess it means potential energy, but please avoid abbreviation that have not been introduced before
- PE is a standerd notation used by every one.

_eq 18: the fact that the total potential is equal to the sum of the individual potentials is already known

- Then what you are asking?

_from eq (18-E): the notation is unclear, is j used for identifying a body, or a Cartesian coordinate?

- See page 14 line 15-17 where j is defined “Suppose number of Galaxies is j”

_eq 25: same remark as equation 18

- See page 14 line 15-17 where j is defined “Suppose number of Galaxies is j”

_Corollary...: am I to understand that you demonstrated the Viriel theorem? it is a result already known and as such does not have it's place here

- Yes, Viriel theorem is derived from Dynamic Universe Model, shown in Corollary 1, this shows stability of Dynamic Universe Model.

_Corollary 2: I disagree here, the global properties of a system cannot be assumed to be those of the sub-systems

- Oh , It is only when Ensemble achieved a steady state,

i.e., When

_Eq 25 cannot be described as being "powerful" , this is not a new result. As such, this part is nor well written, nor presenting any new result

- These equations derived and presented about 25 years back. Many applications found for this equation. I did not change any wordings or anything from the initial presentation / derivation. Now you you did not like these words. You may suggest any other words.

- I did not your words, that this is not a new result. I don’t know about any other equation by somebody else… I also want to know…..

4. Initial Values:
4.1: mass of NH satellite: the mass of an object has no influence on it's own dynamic, so I don't see the point of taking the mass of New Horizons into account if you only consider gravitational forces.

- How can you say that? ( F = G. m1.m2 / r² ) is the Newton’s law of Gravitation. How come mass is not necessary when only Gravitational forces are considered even when Dynamics are considered .

- I hope he knowledgeable of what he is saying…????

- c write something to criticize and REJECT because of lack of his understanding of the paper is that so , It is very bad???????????

- At least you could use some reviewers to reject the paper who know Newton’s law of Gravitation !!!!

5. NH Predictions as given...
I don't even know where you read that the NH team does not take into account the gravitational influence of the planets. They used gravitational assistance from Jupiter to increase the speed of the probe, so I think we can safely assume that they take into account at least the influence of the Sun and planets. Moreover, you do not take in to account the trajectory corrections made to make sure that the probe will reach Pluto, or the radiation pressure (that plays a really important role, as the example of the "Pioneer anomaly" shows).

-This is another misunderstanding of the paper. I never said NH team did not consider the influence of the other planets. I said they used round about classical methods for determining the trajectories….

This is another confusion by this reviewer

6. Results of New Horizons...
This part only describes the different computation of trajectory made, without any analysis. It should not have a part all by itself, especially if this is the last part of the article just before the conclusion

- I wanted to show this NH trajectory as another possible application of Dynamic Universe Model with comparable results

7. Conclusion
The conclusion deals mostly with the applications of the Dynamic Universe Model, not so much with what is supposed to be the subject of the paper: New Horizons. As such, I cannot say much about it, except that this is not what the conclusion of a scientific paper is supposed to be like.

- I wanted to show this NH trajectory as another possible application of Dynamic Universe Model with comparable results

8. Future Predictions of NH trajectory...

This description has nothing to do here, in fact it would be better at the end of the Introduction to give details about the plan of the article, or at the beginning of the conclusion to remind the reader of said plan.

- I will change it

Considering all those points, I can only advise against publication.

With my best regards.

----------------
******************************************

DYNAMIC UNIVERSE MODEL

Pages

Sunday, 28 December 2014

Reviewers for Elsevier's 'Advances in Space Research' journal DON'T EVEN KNOW NEWTONS LAW OF GRAVITATION.... !