Dear Joe,

I do not mind comments about my work because there have been times that I have received good useful information that way. At the very least it tells me about the level of understanding of the one making the comments. This helps me to respond to the comments in a way that is most likely to be understandable to the commenter. Whether the response is actually of value to the...

view entire post

Dear Joe,

I do not mind comments about my work because there have been times that I have received good useful information that way. At the very least it tells me about the level of understanding of the one making the comments. This helps me to respond to the comments in a way that is most likely to be understandable to the commenter. Whether the response is actually of value to the commenter, of course, depends on whether he is only interested in giving me his current beliefs or actually desires to know the truth if his beliefs are in error, but that is for him to decide. I just give the information. If I am in error, I desire to change my beliefs to conform to reality and if our beliefs are the same, we can work together to gain more knowledge.

You say “Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.” Your implication seems to be that an amoeba is a very simple creature and it is in comparison to the structure of a man, but it is really a very complicated structure that man has not yet perfectly come to completely understand. It contains well over 100 protein machines that function in various ways to allow it to take needed resources into it, to process those resources to produce its needed energy and materials that it uses to repair damaged parts, and even build all the new parts needed to make a complete copy of itself when it divides to form a new amoeba. It also must be able to 1. Get rid of waste materials, 2. Move itself to find new resources, 3. Detect and take those resources into itself, protect itself from external attack, etc. When it reproduces itself, it first reads the required instructions recorded into its DNA. An amoeba has about 300 billion to over 600 billion DNA base pairs depending on the type of amoeba you are talking about. It must then copy the instructions to make all of the new protein machines for the new amoeba to be generated and transfer those instructions to the machines that build those protein machines following the supplied instructions. Those machines assemble the new protein machines by gathering and assembling amino acids together in the proper order one at a time out of about 20 left handed amino acids that are used by living creatures to build their protein machines. There are also right handed amino acids and a total of about 60 other amino acids that are not use in living creatures. If any of these were used to assemble a protein it would be ruined. Each machine must be assembled with the proper amino acid in each of its positions in order for it to function properly in the amoeba. This is effectively a very complex assembly line production plant on a microscopic scale. Man cannot yet build such a system on that size scale. Of course, all of those base pairs of DNA must also be copied and inserted into the new amoeba. There are no living creatures that just gather together a bunch of assorted amino acids and wait for them to self-assemble. They would die before even one protein would be made that way. They all have special machines that build proteins. That is why it is impractical to believe that the first living creature came about by some type of self-assembly. With 80 amino acids each of which comes in both left handed and right handed varieties for a total of 160 possibilities, only 20 of those possibilities (1/8) can be used in valid proteins used in living creatures. Since each position in the protein requires the exact correct amino acid of those 160 possibilities, constructing a protein machine that required 100 amino acid positions to be filled would be like picking the right 100 digit number in a 160 base math numbering system by chance. If you were really very lucky and you picked the right number the first time you would still have to do it again about 100 to 200 more times to get the number of protein machines needed for the first living creature. This doesn’t even begin to cover the more difficult and even less probable self-assembly of the DNA or even RNA that would actually contain the valid code to produce the first creature. All of these parts would have to be produced close enough together to somehow self-assemble into the living creature quickly enough to avoid the natural destruction of them by entropy processes. To get some idea of how low the probability would be to just produce the first protein machine by self-assembly, lets simplify the problem and in the process make it easier than it would be in reality to produce the needed protein machines for the first living creature by self-assembly. We will start by using a system with only 10 possible amino acids instead of the 160 that are really present in the world. This will allow us to just use the decimal system without having to convert from the base 160 system to decimal. Of course, you will need to keep in the back of your mind that in reality the probability of producing the needed protein machines would be much lower than it is in the example that we are using. To make it still easier we will assume that the living creature will need a total 200 protein machines with 2 each of 100 differently coded machines. This means that after you have assembled the number of protein machines that would build all of the possible different protein machines once, you would very likely have produced the first 100 needed protein machines by chance and only need to do it all one more time to produce the other 100 machines. Let’s also assume that in each place in the universe where protein self-assembly takes place, 1 trillion protein machines are produced in each second of time. Since each protein machine can have any one of ten amino acids in each of its 100 positions the total number of possible combinations is 1 x 10^100 combinations. Man’s current estimate is that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. If we figure that it would take about .8 billion years for it to cool enough to generate stars with planets around them that are cool enough to allow protein self-assembly to get going and to produce the first valid usable protein machine, there would still be 13 billion years left to produce the other 199 machines necessary to build the first living creature. Since there could be many places in the universe that could all be producing 1 trillion machines per second, it would likely not take long to produce the first one. After that things change, however. Even though it might be that all of the machines could be produced in a relatively short time with one in one galaxy and another in a second galaxy, etc. they could not come together to form the living creature because of the great distances between them. This would mean that the other 199 protein machines would have to be made by self-assembly on the same planet and even in the same local area on that planet that the first one had formed in order for the 200 machines to be close enough together to somehow assemble themselves along with the DNA, RNA, and any other needed parts to form a living creature. 13 billion years would equal about 4.1 x10^17 seconds. Figuring 1 trillion protein machines produced each second, a total of about 4.1 x 10^29 protein machines would be produced in 13 billion years, which is way short of the 1 x 10^100 machines that would need to be produced to make the first 101 valid protein machines that are needed to produce the living creature by chance self-assembly. You would still likely have to go through about as much time again to produce the other 99 machines. Another consideration would be that if one valid machine was produced and the next one was not produced for several million years, the first one would surely be destroyed by some entropy interaction over that long a time, let alone the many billions of years that it would take to produce all 200 of them. If they all were somehow produced and survived, you would have 200 proton machines mixed up in a mountain of invalid proton machines and they would somehow have to by chance be separated from that mountain and joined together with all the other parts and somehow become a living creature. Remember that I limited the amino acids to only 10 instead of the actual 160 possible amino acids that could be positioned in each of those 100 positions in each of the protein machines. This means that it would even take tremendously longer than I showed in my example to produce all 200 valid protein machines for the production of the living creature.

There are always those who will completely ignore reality to believe what they want to believe, but I can’t do that because I desire to know the truth of how things really work. Given the complexity of the structure of living creatures, the math just does not support the concept of self-assembly of living creatures by chance occurrences.

Reality starts out simple, but as those simple motion machines are joined together hierarchically to produce more and more complex structures, things become progressively less simple as you advance through those levels of increasing complexity. By the time you reach the level of molecules, things can get very complex. Man has not yet made all possible chemical combinations because the number is so large.

You are right that there is only one reality. When we look at the world around us we see things that move in relation to us. Sometimes these things intersect and their motions are changed in certain ways. There are other ways that we can imagine that the motions could change during an interaction between them, but they never act in those other ways. This tells us that the ways that we see the motions change during an interaction are a result of the way the things are made. Their structures only allow the generation of the interaction results that we see. Written into these structures are the laws or paths of action that allow for the production of the observed interaction results and disallow any other results. These laws are not men’s abstract laws, but are operational laws that are built into reality. Men only use abstract language forms to model or represent those laws that are built into natural structures.

When I look at the world around me I don’t see just one unified visible infinite physical surface. I see many objects each of which has its own complete surface that may or may not be connected to any other visible surface. As an example, I can take a balloon and add just enough helium to it when I blow it up, so that it will stay where I place it in the air when I carefully let go of it and will not be touching any other visible surface. If the surface of the balloon is painted so that each side looks different than the other side, I can first look at the one side that I can see and then walk around the balloon and see its complete outside surface and that it is not touching any other visible surface. I can even place mirrors behind it such that I can stand in one place and see one side of its surface directly and at the same time I can also look at the mirrors and see the light that has reflected off of the other side of its surface and hit the mirrors and then reflected off of the mirrors and entered my eyes allowing me to at the same time see the back side of the balloon also. You would have to tell me what you understand this one infinite dimension to be and how it works to let us see all that we see when we look at the world around us before I can make a comment on that because you apparently define dimension differently than is commonly done by most that I have seen in this world. When 2 things intersect and their motions are changed in some way as a result of that interaction, what do you understand to have caused their motion changes? Is their surface in any way involved in generating those changes? I ask this because light can cause motion changes also that are similar to the changes that are generated by the interaction of 2 things that have surfaces. Light does not appear to be infinite to me because when I turn on a flashlight I see that light begins to come out of the front of the flashlight. Since it has a beginning at that point, it cannot be infinite because infinite light would not have a beginning or ending point.

I will try to read your paper and make a comment on it as you requested me to do. It may take me some time, however.

In past years I have had trouble keeping track of the comments that I make on other people’s papers and blogs, etc., so this year I am trying a new way to better control things. I will place my response to any comment on my page on both my page and on the commenters page unless the commenter requests that I don’t do so and I will place my comment on anyone else’s page also on my page, so I will have an easily accessible copy of it to refer to.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

To All,

The fact that the universe contains these types of information structures in its makeup suggests that great intelligence was involved in its construction. As man’s understanding of the complexity of the world increases this conclusion only becomes more and more obvious. I have seen that more and more scientists are coming to this conclusion, but many still desire to believe that...

view entire post

To All,

The fact that the universe contains these types of information structures in its makeup suggests that great intelligence was involved in its construction. As man’s understanding of the complexity of the world increases this conclusion only becomes more and more obvious. I have seen that more and more scientists are coming to this conclusion, but many still desire to believe that there is a natural explanation for this. As a result I see many who try to think that the universe is intelligent of itself and thus made itself to be as it is. This is not a practical concept, however, because the structure of a universe that began from a big bang would be too chaotic to allow any intelligence to exist in it for quite a while after its beginning and the intelligently designed hierarchical structures that exist in and are parts of the universe start at the most basic levels of its formation including such basic entities as sub-energy, energy photon, and matter particles that would have of necessity already existed to allow for the production of any universal intelligence structure. To put it another way, intelligently designed hierarchical structures that are parts of the universe would need to have been present before any such universal intelligence could have been created because they would have been needed to build that intelligent structure. I have even seen some say that people in the future figure out how to build the universe and then travel back in time to before its creation to create it. The biggest problem with that concept is how those people would be able to go through the process of acquiring all that information and ability to make a universe before they could have created it in the first place. The most subtle approaches that I have seen are ones that portray the natural structures of the world in a way that makes it look like they favor the production of complex structures like living creatures when it is very apparent that the natural environment actually favors breaking down such structures. This is why living creatures have machinery to repair broken or damaged parts to keep them alive and functioning for a longer time. It took me over twenty two years of research to ultimately come to the conclusion that the universe had to have been created by an intelligent being. When I started, living beings were considered to be composed of cells that contained protoplasm and cytoplasm and some mysterious life force and the universe was thought to be in a steady state where stars would burn out and explode and new stars would then be made from the dust of the explosions, etc. so it was not so hard to believe the natural universe concept then, but now it is seen that the complexities of the structures of the universe could not have been caused by chance happenings and the built in structures work to break down such complex structures as living creatures, etc. It is therefore, evident at this time that a natural production of the universe and of living creatures is not a practical possibility.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Dear Satyavarapu,

I looked at your paper as you requested and the greatest problem that I found in it is the concept that the energy photons that are radiated from stars as a byproduct of the fusion of light elements such as hydrogen into helium would be changed back into more matter (presumably hydrogen) as it passes near large masses. It is possible for energy photons that possess a...

view entire post

Dear Satyavarapu,

I looked at your paper as you requested and the greatest problem that I found in it is the concept that the energy photons that are radiated from stars as a byproduct of the fusion of light elements such as hydrogen into helium would be changed back into more matter (presumably hydrogen) as it passes near large masses. It is possible for energy photons that possess a great enough fourth vector motion (i.e. has a high enough frequency) to change into matter particles when they come into contact with a large enough angular motion source, so a small amount of such photons could be converted back into matter, but a very large percentage of the photons that are emitted by stars is too low in frequency to change into matter particles because the photons just do not contain a large enough amount of motion to generate matter particles and would not pick up the additional motion needed to become matter particles from gravitational attraction. In fact, the increased density of sub-energy particles near large bodies of matter would increase the likelihood of interactions between them and any energy photons that were near the large bodies of matter, which would result in the transfer of some of the energy photons’ fourth vector motion to the sub-energy particles involved in the interaction(s). This would lower the frequency of, or red shift, the photons, thus taking away some of their existing fourth vector motion. In addition to this, many of the photons that could be converted to matter particles will not come close enough to such an angular motion source and will be dissipated throughout space and not converted back into matter particles. Even if they all converted, the loss of all of the motion contained in the photons that were too low in motion content to convert would ultimately cause all of the lower elements up to about iron to be fused into higher elements then the existing stars would all burn out and no new stars could be formed. In my paper I explained how during an interaction that transfers motion amplitude from one entity to another the motion generally transfers from the entity with the greater motion amplitude to the one with the smaller amplitude. This is what is happening in the star as it converts the large amount of motion that is freed during the fusion process into energy photons most of which do not possess enough motion to convert back into matter particles. I also mentioned that motion concentrations naturally tend to disperse evenly throughout space. That is what is happening to the energy that is emitted by the stars, which would include most of the photons that do contain enough motion to be converted back into matter particles. These things are a large part of what man calls entropy and they are not reversible unless an even greater amount of motion is applied to cause it to reverse and then that greater amount of motion is lost to entropy, so the end result is always a loss of available useable motion. This universe is a temporary structure that was built by God to be used for the purpose of building a body for himself to live in. He made us to become parts of his body if we choose to join him in the way that he allows us to do so. Once his body members or parts are all made, he will have no more need for this world because his body members will live eternally and he knows all things, so he will not need to make a new body like a man might need to do in order for it to do some new thing that he just figured out how to do. He is also replacing this world with a new larger one that is not subject to entropy and will not end for his body and him to live in, which will be a much better life than can be possible in this world. He will then take all of the motion that he took out of himself to make this world back into himself. Since his motion is much greater than that contained in the stars, etc. of this world, this universe will effectively be burned up in the process along with everything in it. This end of the universe will occur long before the stars all burn out, etc. Only his body members will be saved from that and enter into the new world with him.

When I work to give people in this world new information, I have found that if it goes too far beyond their currently accepted beliefs, it will be rejected. I, therefore, try to work within man’s currently accepted framework of knowledge as much as possible so that there is some possibility that the new information will be accepted. If it is, it will then be possible to progress to the next level, etc. There are times, of course, when man is in a negative progression portion of the advancement cycle, such that very little new advancement growth can occur. The big bang theory is one of those areas that I cannot currently address in detail for this reason. In other cases to properly explain something that man does not currently understand correctly would require giving out information that man is not yet ready to receive because it would be used destructively, etc. That can also not allow me to completely explain the correct answer. Everything must be given out at the proper time that is according to God’s will to fulfill his purposes.

Comparing the continual formation of stars and galaxies to biological reproduction is a bit of a stretch. When living creatures reproduce, their offspring are either equal in complexity to the parent(s) or grow up to become as complex in structure, etc. If the galaxies were the offspring of the universe they should each grow into a new universe, but they don’t. Stars do not generally divide or in some other way reproduce themselves. New stars just coalesce from clouds of gas by gravity until the pressure and temperature is increased by the compaction to the point that fusion begins, etc. The fusion reaction is a normal part of entropy that removes the lower elements by transforming them into higher elements because the atom of the higher element that is created contains less total motion content then the two atoms of the lower source element used to create it. The excess motion that is freed in the interaction is radiated away from the interaction point. This changes the lower elements up to about iron into midrange elements while on the other end the higher elements break down into midrange elements because the elements in the middle contain the least amount of motion for their size structure. Both of these entropy processes radiate the excess motion that is freed up by the motion transfers. On the other hand, living creatures must build the complex structures that make up their offspring through the use of protein building machine(s) that build a specific protein according to a plan that is delivered to it by a messenger RNA molecule. The RNA molecule first copies that plan from a specific part of a DNA molecule. The DNA molecule(s) contains the complete plan information to build a complete new same type living creature written within its structure. Many such protein machines and other structures must be built by the machines contained within the living creature’s cell(s) including a complete new copy of the DNA molecule(s) in simple living creatures that reproduce by cell division. In more complex living creatures reproduction is even a much more complicated procedure. Although the living creatures free more motion than they trap into these highly complex molecular structures and, thus, generate an overall increase in entropy, they use much of that motion to build these complex structures and, therefore, operate against entropy in their local environment. The stars normal operation does not do this. If a living creature cannot find enough food to produce the motion that it needs to continue to operate and reproduce, it will move in an attempt to find its needed resources and it generally has sensors of some kind to help it find what it needs. Stars simply consume the available resources and then cease to operate in some way like a fire. When there are no more gas clouds in space that contain enough of the right materials in them to form a star, all star formation will cease.

The real universe is not free of body-body collisions. Many collisions occur in a wide range of body-body size ranges from meteor collisions with planets to interactions between galaxies when they intersect that would surely cause many collisions even between stars.

When you say that the central dense mass of a galaxy is getting dried up, where does that dense mass go? If it just moves out from the center of the galaxy what is the source of the motion that causes it to overcome the great gravity attraction that the central mass would possess that would greatly resist the pulling away of any of the matter contained in that mass?

I do like that you have included information concerning specific real galaxies. I would have liked to have seen a more detailed discussion of the information that you presented about them that would make the information that you provided more intelligible to the average reader by describing how the given information was derived from the red shift values given, etc.

The universal gravitational force is a good concept. The actual force experienced by any object would be determined by its present position compared with the positions and masses of all other objects in the universe. This force and its direction would be continually changing on any given object because of the changing positions of all objects in the universe. This opens up the concept of gravitational null locations where all gravitational forces cancel out leaving no net gravitational force applied to those places. Their locations would also be continually changing. So that is a good insight on your part because gravitational nulls can be useful in some advanced experiments.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Dear James,

Your concept of God is common among those who don’t actually believe in the actual existence of God. The general belief is that as science advances all of the things we currently can’t fathom will be explained and then there will be no need for a concept of God. The problem with that concept is that there are two possibilities. One is that God exists and created the...

view entire post

Dear James,

Your concept of God is common among those who don’t actually believe in the actual existence of God. The general belief is that as science advances all of the things we currently can’t fathom will be explained and then there will be no need for a concept of God. The problem with that concept is that there are two possibilities. One is that God exists and created the universe and the other is that God does not exist and the universe came about in some other way. Putting blinders on oneself and only looking at and trying to work for justification of only one of the two possibilities will likely end in false results because they will be founded on the wrong assumptions. Only a balanced approach that honestly looks at and analyzes both possibilities and looks for all the information that can be found that would support both possibilities and also all the information that would be against both possibilities can after full analysis be expected to be able to likely give a truly valid answer to the question. As an example, suppose that God does exist and that he created the universe and everything in it, but suppose that he made it such that it works automatically, so that you find that it appears to you that no God is needed. If God made it for some purpose, such as to create a body for himself and left signs of that purpose hidden in the structure of the universe in such a way that you would not see them unless you were purposely looking for them and also gave explanations of his purpose to certain men who then wrote them down in a book for people to read and get an understanding of his purpose, which included that he made us to become parts of his body which will live eternally in a new universe after this one is destroyed by him when he has all of his body members made, but we must choose to become members in a certain way that he has provided for us to do so, you would likely not read that book because you would think that you have the answer that you desire to have. The result would be that you would spend a lot of time coming to a conclusion that would leave you out of the whole purpose of the universe and the life that can be had after this one. A true scientist looks at and analyzes all of the possibilities and then makes decisions based on all the information available. Even then he always keeps his mind open to new evidence that could possibly change that decision.

I spent over twenty two years looking for that answer in man’s science as that advanced over the years and in other sources all of which together ultimately led me to understandings that go well beyond man’s current understandings of how the world works. I then, by what I at that time thought was just by chance, happened to open and read a part of the Christian New Testament scriptures and found to my amazement that it contained information that was not currently known by man in this world. That a book written about two thousand years ago contained such advanced information caused me to decide to read it all and I have since found much more information, some of which I still don’t yet completely understand about many different areas of knowledge. I also found that the Old Testament contains similar information. I included a small amount of that information in my paper, but the paper was too short to include very much of that information in it.

When I first started my quest to determine whether God exists or not, I found it relatively easy to believe in a natural universe because the accepted theory at that time was the steady state theory, which held that the universe has always existed and that stars would eventually burn out and explode and that the dust from that explosion would eventually come back together to form new stars, etc. Evolution was also easy to believe because living creatures were said to be composed of cells that were filled with protoplasm and cytoplasm and some mysterious unknown life force. This sounded simple enough to possibly come about naturally and evolve. As the steady state theory was ultimately disproven and it became evident that the universe had a beginning and that living creatures were made of cells that were actually very small factories that produced very complex structures that are even today beyond man’s ability to make, etc., it became evident that the universe could not have created living creatures because it tends to break down such structures instead of making them and since the universe had a beginning, that also fit into the concept that it was created by God. I still did not fully accept the existence of God until I saw the information that was provided in the scriptures about him and the world that he created. Since then I have also come to understand other problems with concepts such as evolution. As an example, If you use a DNA copy error rate and a positive result rate that are great enough to possibly allow the production by evolution of all of the types of living creatures that have ever existed, those rates would cause an exponential increase in evolution due to the population increase of all of the creatures, so that today we should see many major evolutionary changes happening all around us, but we don’t.

You are right that entropy is a natural process and that it governs both animate (living creatures) and inanimate (nonliving structures) and applies to things of all sizes. The main difference between the living and nonliving things is that the nonliving things behave completely according to entropy while the living creatures apply some of the motion (energy) that they use to build very complex molecular machines and thus work contrary to entropy in that respect. The nonliving things don’t do this. Of course, living creatures use more motion than they place into the building of these complex structures, so they still can’t completely escape entropy. All of the fossil fuels that man is currently using and has used in the past are the remnants of that stored motion that living creatures have produced over a long time. The natural world does not generally build and store such motion. Instead it tends to break down and disperse any such stored motion over time.

I looked at your paper and found some of the usual attempts to justify the concept that the universe somehow created life. The idea that entropy could drive matter to acquire life-like physical properties ascribes an intelligence to inanimate matter that it does not possess. Inanimate matter can only act in accordance to its built in structural information which means that it behaves in accordance with entropy and tends to average the motion contents of all entities in the system toward the center or average of their motion amplitude range and tends to disperse evenly throughout available space. Larger entities that are more subject to gravity tend to be pulled together by it, etc. There is a long way from matter that is placed in an environment with a lot of motion forming clumps and the generation of complex protein machines and DNA molecules. If that is a natural tendency, why do we not see naturally produced protein molecules and DNA molecules everywhere? The planet Mercury receives a great amount of energy that needs to be dissipated. It should, therefore, by the theory that you support generate a very great amount of life on that planet to help to dissipate all that energy. The same could be said about Venus. If that theory really worked it would be very good because if I made a kettle of chili, every time I warmed it up it would reproduce and automatically make more for me in order to dissipate the applied heat, so I would never need to make more. I might, of course, have to add some dirt or something for it to convert into more chili every so often or something like that. One of the problems with the concept that life would form as a natural process to aid dissipation of energy is that building complex molecular structures is not energy dissipation. It is energy storage. Nonliving matter would tend to dissipate all applied energy, but living creatures would store much of the applied energy into the complex molecular structures that they make. This would actually hinder energy dissipation, not aid it.

Evolution does not intrinsically increase complexity in living creatures. It would only support successful adaptation to the environment. If the environment were to change so that no creature larger than an ant could survive, we would all die out, but ants would still survive and that would be evolution in action even though it would be supporting less complex living creatures over the more complex ones.

The earth’s environment could support the 7+ billion people on this planet if man would stop burning the fossil fuels and use solar energy to generate needed power. If this was done properly, man would take energy that hits the earth from the sun and needs to be dissipated anyway and use it to produce the motion that is needed and then allow it to dissipate back into space normally. This would also get rid of the pollution problems.

It took me quite a while to fully accept the evidence that the universe and life were created by God, so I can understand why those who desire a natural answer to the question of the source of the universe and of life would tend to rationalize some way to look at the world in a way that would support that result, but it is evident that entropy works against life which is why all living creatures have machinery to repair the damages that it causes to them. If the big bang actually happened to create the universe, its cause cannot be discerned because all of man’s theories break down before getting all the way back to the actual beginning of the expansion. With two possibilities (created by God or by some natural occurrence) and no way to determine which it is, any reasonable person would say that it is a fifty percent chance either way. The only thing that could change that understanding would be if the universe’s structure indicates that it was created by an intelligent being or by natural random processes. In that respect its complex multilevel hierarchical structure implies that much intelligence went into its construction, especially into the production of living creatures. To me an attempt to convince people that the thing (entropy) that works to break down and destroy living creatures and the things that they make actually is what works to create life is the ultimate misinformation campaign. Of course, each has the right to have his own delusion if he desires to do so. I just desire to know and understand how things really work too much to continue down that path when it is now so obvious that it is a dead end path.



I find it interesting that we are coming to the end of a complete cycle of understanding. If you go back into history in the United States, when the country was more Christian oriented, someone with the naturalist philosophy would have been considered either very naïve or foolish. At that time there was little scientific evidence either way. Later scientists bought into that philosophy which gave it much credence in the intellectual world and it got to the point that those who believed in God were considered very naïve or foolish. When I came on the scene, I did find that most Christians that tried to disprove evolution did not understand its concepts, so that led me to tend to agree with the scientists of the time. As time went on and the true complexities of the world and the life in it became more and more known, it became apparent that a natural explanation was not practical. Now I find that some scientists are purposely trying to reinterpret the facts of how things actually work in the world to continue to support the naturalist philosophy when the scientific evidence is actually showing it to be wrong. In addition to that I am now finding some Christians who have gone into scientific fields such as genetics and biology who recognize the problems and are beginning to publically address them. The main good thing that has come out of all of this is that science has greatly advanced in the process of trying to prove it in one direction or the other and in the end God still wins because his works prove him.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Dear Declan,

That is a good question, but it does not mean that God is not the solution as to how the universe and life were created. It would just be the next logical question to ask once you came to the conclusion that he did create them. We know now that the universe did not always exist, but had a beginning, so if God created them it would tell us that he at least was in existence...

view entire post

Dear Declan,

That is a good question, but it does not mean that God is not the solution as to how the universe and life were created. It would just be the next logical question to ask once you came to the conclusion that he did create them. We know now that the universe did not always exist, but had a beginning, so if God created them it would tell us that he at least was in existence before the creation of them in order to have created them. According to man’s current estimate of the beginning time of the creation, he would have to be older than 13.8 billion years. Given that age it would not be too great a stretch to believe that he has always existed. After all, it was not that long ago that scientists thought the universe had always existed, so if that could be believed by man why not believe that God who created it always existed? Of course, we can only know for sure, if he has told us in one way or another. In the Christian Old Testament at Isaiah 57, 15, God says that he inhabits eternity. In The New Testament at I Timothy 1, 17 God is said to be eternal and immortal. Of course these things would only be evidence to you if you believe that God is the source of these scriptures. To a great extent I was convinced that he is, by the information that is contained in them about the structure of the world that we can observe, which goes beyond what man currently understands. Of course, it also contains information about parts of the creation that we can’t presently observe, such as the heavens and the hidden framework behind our world that generates the outputs that make up the world that we see and are parts of, etc. As I looked deeper into the scriptures, I found that it contains much information about many other things also that explains how things in the world work, etc. There are many things in the structure of the world that are images of things pertaining to God also. I hope that helps you.

I looked at your paper and found that although it is very short, it is one of the better ones that I have seen in this contest so far.

Your zeroth requirement is explained in my paper. It also explains how the wave nature of energy photons works.

There are multitudes of energy sources present in the universe.

What is a survivable environment depends on what it is that is to survive in it. As an example, this planet is currently survivable to living creatures that have a limited life time of generally less than 120 years and have built in repair mechanisms to repair the damages caused by entropy interactions, but if you were to consider whether it is survivable to parts of a living creature over very long periods of time, such as billions of years while all of the necessary parts were formed one at a time by chance until they were all formed and then would somehow provide an environment, such that all those parts could somehow come together and form the first living creature, it would not have been stable enough at any given location to allow that to happen because entropy interactions would surely destroy the first parts long before the last ones would be made. In nature the most survivable structures are those that are the closest to the motion amplitude equilibrium point. These are the structures that are created by the one way chemical reactions or are the elements that are in the middle atomic weight range, etc. Building complex molecular structures is like stacking many bricks on top of one another. It does not take much to make them fall and, thus release all of the potential energy that was stored in them. On the other hand if you lay all those bricks side by side flat on the ground they can’t fall from there, so that structure is very stable and is, therefore, much more survivable than the other one. If survivability is the important driver then complex structures would never form.

The natural world does not contain the intelligence to be able to favour anything. It operates in accordance with its built in structural information, which generally operates in only the direction that works toward the averaging of internal motions in all entities involved and the equal dispersion of all entities in space except where controlled by gravity. It is true that this can be modified if external energy is added. Although the addition of external energy can make it possible to make chemical reactions occur in the opposite direction, there is no evidence that the self-assembly of complex structures such as the molecular protein machines, RNA molecules, and DNA molecules, etc. that are needed to operate inside of the cells of living creatures have ever occurred naturally in nature. The problem is not just to get amino acids to join together to make a protein. A certain type of protein that a living cell needs to function contains a chain of amino acids that can be 300 or even as much as 1400 amino acids long. There are about 80 amino acids generally found in nature. Each one comes in a left handed and a right handed variety for a total of 160 possibilities that could be joined together to make a protein. Only about 20 of those are used in living creatures. Each position in the protein chain must contain a specific amino acid type of the twenty. You should begin to see the problem of random protein self-assembly. If you start with a simple protein that contains a chain of 100 amino acids, each position in that chain must contain the right amino acid out of the 160 possibilities. If you put the wrong amino acid into any one of its 100 positions the protein is ruined. If you assemble proteins randomly you would have to make an extremely large number of them to have any likelihood of producing the one that you need. Think about the chance of picking out the right numbered card out of a stack of numbered cards that has 1 X 160 ^100 different numbered cards in it. If you could assemble quintillions of them per second you would not come close to producing that one specific protein in 13 billion years and you would need to produce at least 200 specific types of proteins to build the simplest possible living cell. Living cells can make the right proteins as they are needed because they have already been preprogrammed to do so. The right sequence of amino acids for each of the proteins that the living creature uses is recorded into its DNA. When a certain protein is needed a transfer RNA molecule reads the code from the proper storage place in the DNA and transfers it to a protein building machine, which is itself a protein. This machine reads the code from the RNA molecule and picks and positions the proper amino acid into the next position in the new protein molecule. It would then read the next position code and pick the proper amino acid to place in that position of the new protein. This would be repeated 100 times to complete our basic protein. A cell is essentially a very complex completely automated molecular based protein production process control assembly facility. In addition to that it also performs its normal life functions. In addition to all of this many proteins cannot exist long enough outside of the cell to allow a nuclear magnetic resonance image to be taken of them. This would mean that they would all need to be assembled in a very short time and once produced these proteins would have to be assembled into a living cell in a very short time. Living cells are basically an organic computer controlled device that contains stored information that controls its functioning and built on a molecular size scale. Man cannot come close to making such a complex structure. Can you imagine a completely automated car plant that can move around to find all of the basic materials and energy it needs to build cars and can then process all of them into the needed finished materials, such as plastics and metals, etc. into the form that they need to be in and then cut and shape them all into the right parts and then assemble them together to make cars and at the same time it automatically repairs any failures that develop in it and every so often completely builds another car plant from the materials that it gathers as it moves around. When I began to understand the true complexity of the structure of living creatures it became apparent that it would be ridiculous to consider that it could in any way come about from natural random processes. And the example of the car plant came from a comparison to a single celled creature. If you talk about more complex structures like man, the complexity expands more exponentially. Just think of the cell differentiation problem that would start with a single general purpose cell and as cells would divide they would need to slowly differentiate in many stages into all of the different types of cells in the body with each cell in the right place when it is done. All of this would need to be controlled by all of the possible differentiation forms being stored in the DNA in some way. When each cell divides it would need to know its differentiation position in the body and the proper code to pull out of the DNA to use to make the next cell so it would also have its proper differentiation from it. There is no way to get around the fact that it would take an intelligence much more complex than man’s to figure out all of these things and then build it, let alone first constructing the universe they are to live in out of combinations of basic motions and building it up to the hierarchical level that would allow the possibility to create the proteins and other complex molecular structures needed to build living creatures.

One of the greatest problems with the concept of evolution is that if you select a DNA error rate and a positive result rate that is quick enough to produce all of the different types of living creatures that have ever lived in the time allowed, (about 13 billion years) starting from just the one first creature, evolution increases exponentially along with the increase in the populations of all of the existing living creatures. This means that today with the tremendously large world population of living creatures we should be seeing a great number of evolutionary changes occurring all around us, but we don’t.

Standing wave structures just like all other cyclical motion structures require external structure to generate the interactions that periodically reverse motion direction in all dimensions that participate in the standing wave motion. In my description of the structure of the energy photon I use a standing wave motion that oscillates between the barriers at the ends of a very small dimension. An interaction with the end of that dimension changes the motion’s direction information to the opposite direction, but blocks the transfer of motion amplitude to the barrier because the barrier cannot receive motion amplitude input. This creates a one dimensional standing wave structure that operates at 90 degrees to the direction of travel of the energy photon, thus producing its frequency, wavelength, and dynamic variable mass wave effects. To produce the three dimensional wave structure of the matter particle I use a more complex structure that also requires an additional dimension that interfaces with the other dimensions in such a way as to create an inter-dimensional cyclical motion flow. You can find more details in my current and other papers.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Declan’s comment to me on his paper’s page:

Wow, I think that comment is another essay!

I do not wish to start a Science v's Religion debate.

I do want to dispute a couple of your points though:

You assert there is not enough time for life to have evolved, but there is an enormous amount of material that is all reacting and undergoing change at the same time - thus...

view entire post

Declan’s comment to me on his paper’s page:

Wow, I think that comment is another essay!

I do not wish to start a Science v's Religion debate.

I do want to dispute a couple of your points though:

You assert there is not enough time for life to have evolved, but there is an enormous amount of material that is all reacting and undergoing change at the same time - thus a massively parallel computer in effect. This multiplies the available time for reactions to take place by a truly enormous number. Also there may be certain fortuitous events (such as certain materials acting as catalyst in reactions) that short-circuit the processes and allow certain reactions to occur much more easily and quickly, given the right conditions.

Also, there is some evidence that has been detected (by Roger Penrose's team a few years ago, I think) of the echoes of previous Big Bangs that occurred before our most recent one. This could indicate that the Universe is much older than originally thought, or even of infinite age (i.e. has always existed).

It depends on your point of view: If one were to say that the Universe IS god then there is no need for it to have been created, and it might have always existed. This might be a good way for Science and Religion to unite in some fashion.

My comment to Declan on his paper’s page:

Dear Declan,

I guess I just got carried away. To me, the source of the universe and all things in it is the most important understanding to obtain because everything else expands from that and there is so much to it, so I can go on for a much longer time than I did to explain everything, but for your sake I will try to keep this comment shorter.

I was not talking much about the evolution part of the problem in my previous comment except to point out that, since the DNA error rate and the positive result rate would increase exponentially with the population rate increase, we should be seeing many evolutionary changes all around us now, but it is not happening. Mainly I was talking about the difficulty in naturally producing the first living creature. The problem is that it is estimated that the simplest possible living creature would need to contain about 200 specific protein machines to carry out the minimum life functions of a living creature. In real living creatures these machines can have a chain of 300, 600, or even as much as 1400 amino acids, all of which must have the proper amino acid placed into each of those positions in the chain. I used an example of a protein with a chain of only 100 amino acid positions in it. Given the 160 different amino acids in nature, that would allow about 2.58 X 10^220 possible different proteins that could be built. Out of all of those possibilities you would need to get the 200 that you needed. Since it is estimated that there are only about 10^80 elementary particles in the universe and each protein machine would require a large number of them, you could only make a very small percentage of them if you used all of the universe’s matter particles to do it. It is estimated that if you completely filled the universe with protons it would only hold about 10^128 of them and that is still a very small percentage of 10^220. The chances against any random self-assembly of just 1 such protein machine are so great that it could never happen, let alone making 200 of them that way. The massively parallel argument is a good one to start out with, but it only works for the production of the first protein because that one could be formed anywhere in the universe, but after that the other ones would all need to be formed on the same planet and in the same local area of it, so that once they were all formed, all of the machines could somehow be quickly brought together and somehow be brought to life before any of them was destroyed by entropy interactions. The smaller the area, the greater the chance that they could all come together once produced, but the fewer resources would be available limiting the quantity that could be produced in a given time frame. Catalysts facilitate a reaction between chemicals to speed it up, but they don’t have the ability to choose the right specific amino acid and place it in a specific position in the protein chain. Even if you could speed up the random production of proteins, it would not help because you could not produce a large enough number of them to likely make the right one if you used all of the matter in the planet to do it.

If any big bangs occurred followed by big crunches as some suppose, everything that had been done to produce protein machines or anything else would be destroyed by the big crunch, so this would not help to produce living creatures. It would only result in repeating the production and then destruction of the same proteins over and over again, so life would never be produced. The problem with an endless universe that always was is that it is subject to entropy and it can be seen that it will ultimately effectively cease to exist or at least cease to operate.

In a sense you may be right in that God has always existed and he took a small part of the motion of which he is composed to make the universe and all that is in it. Therefore, all of the motions in the universe have always been in existence, they have just not always been put together in the current form. Would that be acceptable? That is why the total motion content is the one thing that is always conserved and can’t be destroyed. It also explains why God has always been in existence and can’t be destroyed.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Hector Daniel Gianni’s comment to me on his paper’s page:

Dear Paul Butler:

You choose my essay as the best you read till now, this show me that at least mine is readable, clear and understandable for you. I thank you for your opinion.

My essay is radical because left aside the prehistoric and unfunded “belief” of “time” physic existence, which has no scientific...

view entire post

Hector Daniel Gianni’s comment to me on his paper’s page:

Dear Paul Butler:

You choose my essay as the best you read till now, this show me that at least mine is readable, clear and understandable for you. I thank you for your opinion.

My essay is radical because left aside the prehistoric and unfunded “belief” of “time” physic existence, which has no scientific prove, in favor of search around of the only thing man knew about “time”, it’s measuring. Definition and empiric meaning are scientifically proved since centuries ago. It’s origin in my essay is just the most probable way of how the “time” born. The only people, among all sciences who need this is theoretical physicists. I don’t need this knowledge for nothing at all, I can’t construct anything with it because I’m not a physicist, they need it, but I hope for the best of science than most physicists are not in the position you think that possibly they are. I hope to find the right person to convince others of the essay value. You say “currently accepted scientific beliefs are based on the erroneous concepts of a time dimension and the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, etc. that causes those who have held these positions for a long time to tend to automatically deny the validity of any concept that would say those beliefs are in error and need to be corrected to allow man to develop further. In addition to that, some may see the validity of the argument, but their income and the prestige they have in their position in the scientific structure might be threatened because they depend on the continuation of current beliefs. Don’t be discouraged by such things. It only takes one person to see the value of your arguments, who is in a position to convince others or to do an experiment that proves them to be right and things could change for the better”.

I hope your best whishes come true

Héctor

My comment to Hector on his paper’s page:

Dear Hector,

It is not that I find that your paper is the most readable, clear, and understandable that caused me to commend your paper because in some ways it is not. It was that you have a better understanding of time than most current scientists have. We live in a motion continuum. Matter, energy photon, and the sub-energy particles that make up field structures are all composed or made up of simple motions or combinations of them. If all of the motions in the world were to suddenly stop, the world would cease to exist. We always live in the current conditions of all of those motions that are continuously changing their positions in space. The past is the conditions that these motions were in, but they have now moved from those positions to where they are now. We cannot go back to the past because those past motion conditions no longer exist, since all of the motions have moved on and changed their positions from those positions to their present conditions. A point in the future is the motion conditions that will exist when all of the motions have moved from where they are now to the new locations in space that they will then be in. We cannot go into some distant point in the future because the motion conditions that will exist then do not yet exist until the motions move from their current positions in space to those new positions. Then those new motion conditions will be the present and if we are still alive we will then be there, but it won’t then be in the future, but will be our present. Man’s current belief in a space time continuum leads to all kinds of nonsensical concepts. In order for there to be a past and future that one could go to, a complete copy of the universe would have to be made every time any motion in the universe changed its position, so that you could go back or forward to that point in time and be able to experience it completely as it was. Each time a copy was generated due to some motion in the universe changing its position all of the motions in the universe would have to be duplicated, which would require a tremendous amount of new motion that would have to come from somewhere. This would essentially mean continually recreating the complete universe every time any motion changed its position in space. I have never seen anyone logically explain how all of this extra motion would be generated. In addition to this, if you could go into the future, it would mean that all of the copies of the universe from the beginning to the end of the universe would all have to exist simultaneously so that you could leave any one of them and go to any other one of them. This would mean that there would be a copy of you in each one of these copies of the universe that occurred during your life time. How then is it that you seem to be traveling forward from one copy to the next as time goes by only being conscious of the one copy that you consider the present? Why would you not be conscious of all of your copies since they all have to exist simultaneously? What would lock your consciousness into only the specific flow from one copy to the next one that you experience? As you can see the space time continuum concept does not make sense when closely analyzed. Many current scientists believe in this concept of time, however, and that is why your understanding is noteworthy because you have not gotten caught up in that belief.

Theoretical Physicists don’t need the time dimension concept either. They just think that they do. It actually causes them many unnecessary problems and interferes with scientific advancement. It may be that many physicists may not be that far off base, but the system that they exist in often requires them to act as if they are in order to get the money that they need to live and do any research that they want to do. In a way this contest is an example. The theme of the contest presupposes that math laws and the processes that generate them in the world are mindless and that they somehow caused conscious living beings to come into existence. It is obvious that those who submit papers are being asked to give a natural explanation of these things, which would usually include some form of evolution advancement from the simple structure of the world to advanced living creatures. Anyone who submits a paper and wants to win or needs to win to get needed money will almost certainly submit a paper along those lines because they understand that their papers will be judged on how closely they meet that expected criteria. The positive difference between FQXI and many other places where papers can be submitted is that papers such as yours and mine that question existing established beliefs would not even be accepted into the system at many of those places. FQXI’s policy allows those who don’t care if they win or not, but just want to get new information out, to at least get it somewhat out into the public domain where it is possible that it can be seen by someone who can recognize its value.

The problem for those who try to follow the guidelines for the paper is that the world that we live in is really a very complex intelligently designed multilevel hierarchically built structure. The built in structural laws by which it operates, which men model with mathematics, show the intelligence that is behind their creation. In addition to that, it is obvious that the world is a temporary structure that is designed to have an end. It is also made so that it is clear that the first living creature could not have been made by the natural processes of the world. The world would tend to break down such complex machinery as the protein machines that are in the cells of every living creature instead of actually building them, as an example. This means that any attempt to explain life creation by natural processes has to in some way try to portray the world structure to be something different than it actually is or that it operates in some way different than it actually does. Often the concept of quantum uncertainty is used to justify an argument. The problem there is that quantum uncertainty doesn’t actually exist either. All of the uncertainty is due to man’s current lack of knowledge of the internal motion structure of matter particles and energy photons and the complete lack of knowledge of the existence of sub-energy particles that make up fields and how they function internally and interact with each other. Because of this most of the papers that I have read in this contest are built on or at least contain false concepts. That is one reason that your paper stands out from the crowd. Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Ronald Racicot’s comment to me on his Paper’s page:

Dear Paul N. Butler;

Thank you for your thoughts and ideas.

I have to admit that it’s difficult for me to fully understand your terminology and how your ideas mesh with current quantum mechanics terminology and theories.

You seem to be suggesting that the internal structure and dynamics of any given quantum...

view entire post

Ronald Racicot’s comment to me on his Paper’s page:

Dear Paul N. Butler;

Thank you for your thoughts and ideas.

I have to admit that it’s difficult for me to fully understand your terminology and how your ideas mesh with current quantum mechanics terminology and theories.

You seem to be suggesting that the internal structure and dynamics of any given quantum particle is completely deterministic and that if one could know the position and relationship of all of the internal building blocks of such a particle, then the results of interactions with other knowable particles would be completely deterministic, predictable and even controllable, perhaps. This is a fascinating idea! Schrodinger’s wave equation probability theory could then be replaced with a new deterministic theory.

For the time being, I can’t see beyond quantum particle interactions being probabilistic as the wave equation implies.

I look forward to reading more about your findings and ideas.

Ron Racicot

My comment to Ronald on his paper’s page:

Dear Ronald,

You are welcome.

Although I tried to stay with current terminology as much as possible, some things, such as the sub-energy particles that make up the structures of fields are generally not currently known by man, so I had to generate a name for them. Many years ago, when particle interaction data showed that matter particles could be changed into energy photons and vice versa; two things became very apparent to me. The first is that if either one can be converted into the other one, they both must be composed of the same basic substance, so that each one would contain everything that was necessary to make the other one. The second is that since an energy photon travels at the speed of light and contains only a dynamic mass effect that increases with an increase in frequency while a matter particle has a large rest mass effect and can effectively stand still, this basic substance had to be somehow structurally stored differently in one compared to the other to generate the difference in their observed actions. The data also showed that they could both be converted to basic linear or angular motions. Since of the three, a basic motion is the simplest structure I came to the conclusion that motion is the basic substance from which they are all composed. This did not seem reasonable at first because we are used to thinking of motion as a property of something else, such as a moving car, etc., but when I looked into motion interactions I saw that although the individual objects that were in motion could be stopped or speeded up, etc.by an interaction, the total amount of motion is always conserved. This means that the motion is an entity in itself and is just joined to other objects, which causes them to move with the motion that is attached to them. Interactions between objects just transferred some of that substance from one object to another one. If motions were just properties of an object and not an existing entity of its own, it would be reasonable to expect that if two equal mass cars each traveled toward the other at 50 miles per hour, when they met their equal and opposite motions would just cancel each other out and they would just both come to a stop when they touched each other. Motions do not cancel each other, however. One may increase while another decreases, but when you add up the total amount it is always conserved. I have since found out that total motion is the only thing that is conserved, with the possible exception of the total number of motions, which may also be conserved, but that is not as easily understandable on the surface.

When I began to look into the structure of simple motions, I found that simple motion particles that travel in some direction at the speed of light or less, but do not have a wave function that operates at ninety degrees from their direction of travel could be what fields are composed of. I called these sub-energy particles because they are at the level of structure that comes below the structure of an energy photon. An energy photon has a linear motion in some direction at the speed of light, but it also contains a cyclical motion that operates at ninety degrees to that linear motion. Cyclical motions generally must travel in one direction for some distance and then must reverse their direction and travel the same amount in the opposite direction and then reverse their direction again and continue this cycle in all dimensions that the cyclical motion takes part in. A reversal of motion can only result from an interaction with some entity. The most obvious way of producing this motion reversal was to consider that the motion that generates the wave function would move back and forth in a very small fourth dimension. It would travel to one end of this dimension and then it would interact with the barrier at the end of the dimension, which would change its direction, but would not change it speed of motion because the barrier could not transfer it. This dimension would be connected to the lower three dimensions in the same way that they are connected to each other with a couple of exceptions. First, motion could not pass between the lower three dimensions to the fourth dimension unless the composite three dimensional speed is greater than the speed of light. If a sub-energy particle receives an increase in its linear motion that would cause it to go faster than the speed of light that excess motion is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion and it then gains the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects that make it become an energy photon. The greater amount of motion that is transferred to the fourth dimension, the higher is the frequency, the shorter is the wavelength, and the greater is the photon’s dynamic mass effect. This is because the greater the motion, the faster it can complete a cycle from one end of the fourth dimension to the other and back again, thus increasing its frequency, which means that it will travel a shorter distance in its linear motion direction during its quicker cycle, thus shortening its wavelength, and the greater the motion, the more motion that can be transferred to another object during an interaction, thereby increasing its mass effect. There are other details, but that should give a good basic understanding of how an energy photon works and why they all travel at the same speed of light. A matter particle requires an additional motion in an additional fifth dimension. In the same way that there is a transfer threshold level of the speed of light to enable motion to transfer from the lower three dimensions to the fourth dimension, there is also a similar transfer threshold to allow transfer of motion from the fourth dimension to the fifth dimension, but unlike the automatic transfer that takes place at the speed of light level to the fourth dimension, when an energy photon contains enough energy to transfer to the fifth dimension it must also come in contact with a proper angular motion component to enable the transfer. That is why a gamma ray photon can remain a photon even though it contains enough fourth dimensional motion to make an electron/positron pair (a matter particle and its antimatter particle). If it travels close enough to an atom to receive the necessary angular motion from the atom’s field structure it can then be converted, as an example. The fifth dimensional motion interfaces differently with the lower three dimensions, such that it transfers motion to each of those three dimensions in sequence with a ninety degree overlap between the first and second, the second and third, and the third and the first dimensions. The motion transfer to each of the lower three dimensions starts at a zero level and increases to a maximum level and then decreases back to zero over time. This causes the energy photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself and it continues to cycle through this path. The path effectively becomes a matter particle. When the motion travels into the lower three dimensions it would cause the photon in the matter particle to travel faster than the speed of light, so the excess motion is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion and if the fourth dimensional wavelength fits properly in the enclosed path, the proper angular motion component exists to allow the motion to travel back into the fifth dimension and the inter-dimensional motion transfer cycle is complete. The only thing that survives the motion transfer is the angular directional changes to the photon’s linear motion path that generates its curved enclosed cyclical path. The great amount of continual angular motion that is generated creates the matter particle’s rest mass effect. Since its enclosed path is three dimensional the mass effect is the same in all three dimensions. The motion of the matter particle around its three dimensional path causes it to entrain sub-energy particles to travel through it from an input point on one side to an output point on the other side of the path, but because its motion continues to travel around the path the input and output points of sub-energy flow through the matter particle are also continually changing position on that path. In addition to this the sub-energy flow is modulated from zero to a maximum and back to zero by the fourth dimensional wave function of the particle. This is the matter particle’s internal field structure and it generally keeps the particles in the nucleus of the atom from interacting directly with each other. The continual motion of the sub-energy input and output around the particle’s enclosed path and the modulation of the sub-energy flow both together generate an external sub-energy field in the form of concentric spheres of sub-energy particles with each sphere varying in sub-energy density from zero to a maximum density and then back to zero. The inner sphere repels the particles in the nucleus and thus contains them in the atomic structure. An electron is attracted to the spheres if it gets close enough to them, which causes it to travel toward the nucleus of the atom. As it travels through the spheres it begins to get attracted to the spheres that are behind it, which it has already traveled through. When the attraction from both directions becomes equal, the electron is in its stable position in the atomic structure. Within each sphere the sub-energy particles travel around the sphere from the input to the sphere to the output of the sphere. This sub-energy flow servos the speed of the electron as it travels around the nucleus. That gives a very basic look at the structure of basic particles. I tried to stay as much as I could with commonly used words, but may not have done it perfectly and some things such as the sub-energy particles are not currently understood to exist by the scientific community, so I had to give them a name to talk about them. I hope it is understandable to you. As I mentioned earlier, my various papers on this site’s contests give some more details.

You are pretty close. When two like particles approach each other to an interaction, if their level of linear motion toward each other is low enough the interaction takes place only between their external sub-energy fields. If it is great enough, they pass through their external sub-energy fields and if the motion level is not too great the particles can be joined together to produce a nucleus as their external fields join together into a single field structure with a single inner sphere that holds them together in the nucleus. If the motion level is still greater the particle’s internal fields interact with each other. If the motion level is great enough the particle’s internal fields are breached and the particle’s internal motions can then interact directly. This can result in the destruction of one or both of the original particles. The output results of the interactions are dependent on the conditions of the particle’s motions at the point of interaction. Generally, there are a number of ranges of proximity that determine what results can occur and the size of each range compared to the others determines the probability of the occurrence of each outcome. It is not time for me to go into more detail about that yet, however. If a way is devised to observe the particles as they approach each other or the ability to control and sync the particle’s internal motions with each other before the interaction is developed, such that it is known what those conditions are at the point of interaction, then the actual outcome of the interaction can be determined or controlled. These things are possible, but these abilities require several advancements that I cannot give. Man must develop these things first. You are right that it is all deterministic. Man just does not yet have the ability to make the observations or to generate the control mechanisms to observe that yet. I have given a model though that gives an explanation of how things work, which is the first step in the process. When the observation and/or control mechanisms are developed, all of the quantum uncertainty will be gone along with all of the gibberish that has been generated in connection to it. I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Dear Hector,

I have found some who say that they don’t consider time to be an actual physical dimension, but just a mathematical dimension, but if the math model that incorporates that dimension is supposed to model reality, that dimension must model some part of reality. I have not yet found anyone who can explain what that part is in any reasonable way.

I agree that there is...

view entire post

Dear Hector,

I have found some who say that they don’t consider time to be an actual physical dimension, but just a mathematical dimension, but if the math model that incorporates that dimension is supposed to model reality, that dimension must model some part of reality. I have not yet found anyone who can explain what that part is in any reasonable way.

I agree that there is much confusion about the concept of a space time continuum. That is why many erroneous beliefs have followed from it, but even if you understand it you can’t expect it to yield good workable results.

That is because time does not actually exist as an entity. What actually exists is space and motion, so a space motion continuum is what actually works. Time is just a relationship between them.

Even fields are composed of motions in the same way that energy photons and matter particles are also composed of combinations of motions. Most people think of movement as a property of something, such as a car, but when I looked at interactions of things in motion I found that all the motion contained in the things that interact is conserved. This tells me that motion is an entity of itself because it can transfer from one thing to another during an interaction and, therefore, is not just an attribute or property of the thing that it is in. If two cars crash, they may both come to a stop, so that they no longer are moving relative to each other, but the motion that was in them has just left the cars in other forms, such as heat or light photons, sound waves, and in chemical changes in parts of the cars, etc. All of the motion still exists. Matter particles can be converted into energy photons and energy photons can be converted into simple motions. This means that they all must contain the same basic substance. That basic substance is motion. Energy photons are composed of two basic motions and matter particles are composed of three basic motions. You are right, motion is the true energy. Energy photons are just one form of motions. You have a good understanding of motion. If all motion stopped the visible universe would cease to exist because it is composed of motion. In my comment to Ronald Racicot just above this one, I give a model that describes the compositions of matter particles, energy photons, and the sub-energy particles that make up fields and how they can be changed into each other. It shows how they can all be constructed out of basic motions. In order to make it short enough to not make the comment too big I left out many details, but it should give a good basic idea of how it works. You can read it if you like and give me any input that you have about it.

You are right it is not time that flows it is motion that flows. One thing that is needed is a standard unit of motion amplitude. Motion amplitude would usually be called speed, but speed incorporates time in its meaning. If two objects start to move simultaneously from one line in a direction that is perpendicular to that line and travel toward another line that is parallel to the first line, so that when they reach the second line they will both have traveled the same distance, if one of them reaches the line, but the other one simultaneously has only traveled half way, then the one that reached the line contains twice the motion amplitude compared to the other one. Any convenient motion amplitude level could be selected to be the standard motion amplitude unit of measure that all other motions would be compared to. It would then be possible to compare motions to each other just based on the amount of motion that they contain without any connection to a time scale. Of course the time scale also compares motions to a standard motion, but in a much more complicated way that is not necessary. This would allow motions to be measured by their size or amount in the same way that distance is measured by its size or amount according to a unit of distance. All that really exists in this world that we see are motions that travel through space and the space that they travel through. Time is just a relationship between motions and the distances that they travel through. It allows different sizes of motions traveling through different sizes of space to be compared to one another.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your agreement with the understanding that the concept that the complex structure of the universe demonstrates a pattern of design and not just what would be expected from random natural occurrences. I have found that as people in this world proceed down a path of search for understanding they tend to gain beliefs some of which are likely to be true and some are...

view entire post

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your agreement with the understanding that the concept that the complex structure of the universe demonstrates a pattern of design and not just what would be expected from random natural occurrences. I have found that as people in this world proceed down a path of search for understanding they tend to gain beliefs some of which are likely to be true and some are also likely to be false because of lack of information or other causes. These beliefs tend to channel their further search patterns into narrower more localized searches that exclude concepts that do not agree with their current beliefs. There is also a pattern of disconnection from real observational information and the buildup of abstract concepts that when all are put together tend to separate people from reality especially in areas where they are in error because irrational abstractions can often be used to justify those beliefs when rational arguments would not work, thus allowing them to continue to believe the false information to be true. It is, therefore, always an uphill battle to get new concepts accepted, especially if they show that previously established beliefs are in some way lacking or false. You are probably right about the numbers because I try to stick to reality in discussions and this may offend those who are willing to just give what they perceive as being expected of them to get high scores or may not like it if reality is contrary to their theory in some way, but to me it is better to find out if your theory is in error so you can work on correcting it than to just have everyone agreeing to overlook each other’s errors because that just adds to the confusion. Luckily for me, I am not concerned about the scores, partly because I don’t have man’s credentials to get more than a $1000 prize and partly because I currently can get by with what I have and don’t have any delusions of grandeur to think that what I am giving out will be understood adequately in my time in this world to give me any gain from it while I am here and once I am gone it doesn’t matter anyway. My goal or purpose is just to do what I can to make life better for those in the future in this world and to help prepare as many as I can for a positive result in what comes after this world.



I am glad that you consider it possible that the world was created by God. I Spent about twenty two years in about the same situation, but as scientific developments progressed and the complexity of the world and the life that is in it became more and more known, It got to a point that the possibility of a natural creation of it all became so improbable that it would have been ridiculous for me to keep going down that dead end path. I am not sure of what you mean by “having identified a mechanism to allow rather more of consciousness (and even an RNA mutation model!) from hierarchical levels of interactions than yours.” Please explain. I have seen concepts of random self-assembly of RNA molecules, but man has been attempting to purposely cause such self-assembly for several years now and the last time I looked has not been successful. If intelligent man cannot do it with purpose and intent, it is hard to believe that it could be done by random occurrences in a world in which entropy actually works to break down such complex structures. Even if such an RNA molecule were to be produced randomly, there would still be the great improbability that it would contain the proper coding to build an actual very simple living creature because it would have to contain all of the information on how to construct the 200 or so exact protein machines needed to make that creature out of a possibility of about 2.58 x 10^220 possible different proteins that could be produced. This plus other improbabilities make natural production of the right RNA molecule so vastly improbable that it would only be wishful thinking to believe that it could happen.

In this basic model I am presenting the motion that is called the speed of light as being generated by a specific motion amplitude level above which the threshold is crossed allowing any further increase in motion amplitude to be transferred to the sub-energy particle’s fourth dimensional motion that then generates its wave and dynamic mass effects, thus turning it into an energy photon. This threshold level is generated by the structural relationship between the lower three dimensions and the fourth dimension. If the three dimensional motion amplitude of an energy photon is increased the extra motion is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion and its frequency is increased. If it is decreased motion transfers from its fourth dimensional motion back down into its three dimensional motion to maintain it at the speed of light and the decrease in its fourth dimensional motion lowers its frequency. I mention these things because they are important in explaining the mechanisms of blue and red shifts, etc. I looked at rotation to explain the static mass effect in matter particles, but found that basic rotation is just a two dimensional operation, so the mass effect that it would produce would vary depending on the direction of interaction compared to the axis of rotation.

I read over your paper quickly and I find many things that are said using word patterns that are not explained in common terms, so it will take me some time to look up and get familiar with the more expanded meanings of those terms. I am sure that there are some who work in areas that would expose them to all of these terms who would easily understand all of them and their extended meanings, but I must still decipher them and translate them into those that I am familiar with. It does appear to me though that you propose that matter particles are spherical and rotate. I am not sure, but it looks like you may consider a second rotation that occurs in a different direction/angle than the first. Is that the case? What do you consider a matter particle to be composed of? What do you consider energy photons to be composed of? What do you consider fields to be composed of? Since they can all be changed into one another, how do you explain the mechanism(s) that allows or causes those transformations?

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Paul

Thanks for your thorough response. On RNA, I identify a 'mutation' (evolution) not creation mechanism, equivalent to people having to decide if they're spinning clockwise or anti clockwise with Earth when standing exactly on the equator. Both answers may result in that case. There IS a mechanism for forming RNA (see below) but I don't discuss it, and it can't rule out a greater...

view entire post

Paul

Thanks for your thorough response. On RNA, I identify a 'mutation' (evolution) not creation mechanism, equivalent to people having to decide if they're spinning clockwise or anti clockwise with Earth when standing exactly on the equator. Both answers may result in that case. There IS a mechanism for forming RNA (see below) but I don't discuss it, and it can't rule out a greater intelligence. Of course in an infinite recycling universe everything that can happen WILL happen so 2.58 x 10^220 is a small number. And the anthropic principle refutes ours is necessarily the 'right' model when it may be just one mutation! But we can't be the most intelligent 'beings' that ever existed in any case.

I concur with you on light speed but showed 3D rotation isn't a 2D operation as assumed, the 'hidden' momentum I identify classically reproduces QM and shows the cetral role of the 'angle' you mention. I also derived cosmic red shift very simply without expansion. See the video here;

Time Dependent Cosmic Redshift Video

The mechanism for this is the expanding radii on the Schrodinger sphere surface which forms helical paths. If orbital speed is limited by c then increased wavelength results. Combining that helical path with pair production can then produce the chain morphology of RNA as the key first step to life.

No I don't assume particles are just simple spheres, indeed behind all spheres is a toroid. I just show how this simplest form can produce far more output complexity than we currently assume. I also identify all 3 not just 2 rotation axes! Just ask about any unfamiliar terminology. I think 'composed of' is a simplistic human term. To over simplify; 'Matter' is 'condensed' by rotations (so into 'quanta') of a sub-matter scale medium or 'condensate' as 3D 'vortices' from shear perturbations (= 'pair production', or fermion pairs 'popping up') 'Fields' are simply spatial zones containing multiple quanta, orientations, bound states etc. which interact giving transformations. Relative motion of whole fields for instance can produce the Lorentz transformation, localising c and giving further red/blue shifts.

Does any of that start to sound intuitive? You really do need to read the essay slowly and be able to handle 5 linked concepts at once as it's quite condensed.

There is a very compressed (100sec) video showing some effects of 3 axis rotation, (though it really needs the full half hour version to explain)

100 second Video; Classic QM.

Best

Peter (copied from my string - I didn't think we got notified at all of responses on other strings!)

view post as summary

Dear Peter,

If a Schrodinger sphere actually exists in nature, and not just as a mathematical construction, what is it composed of and how does it actually function to produce that helical path? How can it be observed? In your theory what limits the speed of light to C? Generally pair production creates a matter particle and its antimatter particle. These particles would normally either...

view entire post

Dear Peter,

If a Schrodinger sphere actually exists in nature, and not just as a mathematical construction, what is it composed of and how does it actually function to produce that helical path? How can it be observed? In your theory what limits the speed of light to C? Generally pair production creates a matter particle and its antimatter particle. These particles would normally either have enough kinetic energy to travel away from their creation point with the antiparticle usually interacting with another matter particle in a very short time resulting in their destruction by conversion into photon energy or if their kinetic energy is low enough they would attract each other and convert to photon energy. How would this develop the complex molecular structure of RNA? Moreover, pair production needs a source of high level motion amplitude such as a gamma ray that has a high enough frequency so that it contains enough motion to make the two particles. What is the source in your concept? It must also come in contact with an angular motion component such as the field structure of an atom near its nucleus. Where would it get that in your example? In nature most pair production in an area where life could exist would just be production of electrons and positrons. Where would the protons and neutrons needed to form atoms come from? RNA molecules are not composed directly of basic matter particles, but are composed of complex molecular components that are linked together by chemical bonds to form the complete RNA molecule. How would you get from the basic matter particles to that much more complex hierarchical structure?

Generally in a recycling universe the big crunch destroys everything created in the previous cycle. How does your theory work in that respect and if things in some way survive from one cycle to the next what is the observational evidence of that? I have not seen any evidence that the universe is infinite. If you have such observational evidence that it is; what is it? The 2.58 x 10^220 is actually a very large number when you consider that it is estimated that there are only about 10^80 elementary matter particles in the universe. This would mean that if each RNA molecule only contained one matter particle, you would still only be able to produce as very small percentage of all of them if you used all of the matter in the universe to do it. Of course, in reality an RNA molecule contains a very large number of matter particles, so you would actually get a lot fewer of them. The 2.58 x 10^220 number that I gave came from a simplified example of a hypothetical simple living creature that contained 200 protein machines that each contained amino acid chains of a length of 100 amino acids. In real living creatures the protein chains can vary from about 66 to 1400 amino acids in their chains. And any living creature contains proteins of more than one size. This would likely be the same for the most basic living creature’s structure, since each protein machine has a specific job to perform, which would mean that its needed structure would likely vary in size from another protein that did a different job. If you consider that the mechanism to randomly produce RNA molecules would, therefore, need to produce not only the coding of all of the possible protein variations of proteins with a length of 100 positions in their amino acid chains, but would also have to produce the coding of all of the different variations of all possible proteins of all of the possible sizes of chains, you could see that the total number would be beyond comprehension. In addition to that Each RNA molecule would have to contain the exact coding for all of the 200 protein machines that would be needed to make the first living creature. If it contained less than that, it would require more than one RNA molecule that all together contained the exact right codes and then there would be the added complexity of how they would work together. If they contained more than the 200 codes they would not likely work, but random production would likely produce some of both. This would also greatly increase the total number of RNA molecules that would need to be produced to get the valid one. In real life cells, the codes are stored in DNA molecules. When a protein machine needs to be constructed, a messenger RNA molecule connects to the proper place on the DNA molecule where the code for that protein is stored, with the help of several other molecules, and reads and stores that code in its structure. It then connects to a ribosome, which is a very complex molecular machine composed of variously modified RNA molecules and protein molecules, etc. The ribosome connects to the first codon, which is the three letter code that tells it what amino acid to add next to the new protein chain. A transfer RNA molecule picks up an amino acid and if it sees that it is the one needed by the ribosome it connects to the ribosome and transfers its amino acid to the ribosome, which places it in the new protein chain. The ribosome then reads codon for the next required amino acid from the messenger RNA molecule and the cycle continues until it reads a stop code from the messenger RNA when the new protein machine is complete. I left out many details, but that is the general way it works. If you could get an RNA molecule that actually contained all of the codes for all of the necessary protein machines needed to make a living creature and if you could get that very complex RNA molecule to automatically replicate itself, you would still need to either randomly make a ribosome to build the proteins and some kind of molecule to transfer the code from the RNA molecule to the ribosome and other RNA molecules to acquire amino acids and deliver them to the ribosome to allow it to assemble the protein machines necessary to build the first living creature or the RNA molecule would have to be super complex and do it all by itself, which would make it even much more unlikely that it could be produced randomly by nature. Even if there were a large number of universes, the anthropic principle would say the our world is at least a right model that produces a viable functional world compared to the much greater number that would not be so. I think that you may have intended to say the evolution principal instead, since that is the one that deals with the mutation concept in that way. If you don’t include God as the necessary more intelligent being than man, why do you believe that any other being(s) that are more intelligent than man must either exist or at least have existed? From the naturalist point of view, if the universe and the life in it was created by just random chance occurrences, then it could be effectively argued that intelligence is not needed in the universe at all because the randomly constructed universe and the life in it are far greater in scope of size, speed, and complexity than anything that intelligent man can do. All life and the intelligence that goes with it could just be some wasteful entropy structure that will ultimately be eliminated as the random universe advances to operate more efficiently. Our existence could in that way be looked at as holding back the natural progression of advancement of the random universe. Isn’t that a pleasant thought? I don’t expect to see that line of reasoning given by anybody though because from what I have seen the main reason that the naturalist point of view is so popular is that man would like to think of himself as god or at least that he will attain that status at some time in the future through evolution, so it tends to be a very egotistically motivated argument. I believe that is why even now when it is obvious that the universe and the life in it requires an intelligent source (God) to generate it and make it work properly, so many still try to twist reality to make it look like it doesn’t. It is always possible to imagine the possibility of anything that one desires to believe in strong enough even without observational evidence.

I thought you were talking about a 3 dimensional rotation, but was not sure that I was interpreting your paper properly. That is a great improvement over the concept of a point particle that still seems to be the most accepted concept that I have seen. When I talk about the substance of a matter particle, etc. I am talking about an actual thing that has existence of itself. What I have observed is that matter particles and energy photons can be converted into each other, so neither of them is truly conserved. They can both also be converted into basic motions and vice versa and in all interactions when you add up all of the motions contained in the input entities and also their kinetic motions the total motion content of the input particles is always conserved. This makes motion the one basic material from which all other entities are composed. When we talk about shapes such as a sphere or a toroid they can be changed during interactions between things and are not necessarily conserved either. Motion possesses a built in structural operation of change, but shapes don’t. You can put a shape in motion, but it is the motion that causes the changes that you see, not the shape itself. When you say matter is condensed by rotations of a sub-matter scale medium, the things that could actually exist are the medium and the motion with a rotational structure. What do you see as the structure of the medium? When you say 3D vortices from shear perturbations, the shear perturbations are the input motions and the vortices are the pattern or structure of the resulting or output motions. You are saying that the matter particles that are produced are composed of motions with structural patterns of vortices. You probably do not realize that you are saying these things because you are used to looking at the shapes, etc. instead of the motions that work or move in such a way as to produce those shapes. When you talk about a sphere, you are actually talking about the 3d rotation of motions in a spherical pattern that is why when I ask you what the sphere is composed of you can’t identify any substance. The true substance is the motions themselves. Your concept of a field is a little more difficult to interpret, however. It starts with a spatial zone (area of space), that contains quanta. How would you define the structure of a quanta? These quanta have orientations in space, which may be changeable. Are they? Bound states seem to also apply to the quanta, such that they can be connected or joined together in some way. How does this joining work? Etc. implies that there are other presently unmentioned properties or variables, etc. Are there and if so what are they? Which interact giving transformations, the bound states interact in some way that causes changes in them. How do these interactions work and how are the changes made? You give one example of such interaction and the change generated by it. (Relative motion of whole fields can produce the Lorentz transformation). The Lorentz transformation is a space time concept. A time dimension does not exist, however. We live in a motion continuum. Time is just a relationship between motions and the spatial distances that they travel through. Motions are not all the same. One motion may contain a greater amount or amplitude of motion than another motion. If two motions are on points on the same line and they both leave those points simultaneously traveling in the same direction that is perpendicular to the line and travel toward another line that is parallel to the first line, so that if they both travel to that line they will both travel the same distance and if one motion reaches that second line when the other motion just reaches the halfway point between the lines, then the motion that reaches the line has a motion amplitude that is twice that of the second motion. Any convenient motion amplitude can be selected to be the motion amplitude standard and all other motions can then be compared to that motion amplitude level. Motion can then be measured by its amount or size just like distance in space can be measured by its size or amount. A condition of all the motions in the universe that existed, but no longer exists because motions have now moved to their present locations, is called the past. The conditions of all the motions in the universe that currently exist, is called the present. A condition of all the motions in the universe that does not yet exist, but will exist when motions have moved from where they are to those positions, is called the future. It is not possible to go back into the past because the motion conditions that existed then no longer exist because the motions have moved from those positions to their current positions. You cannot go into the future because the motion conditions that will exist then have not yet left their current positions and traveled to those future positions. We can only live in the present motion conditions because that is all that exists. If there were a time dimension, a whole complete new copy of the universe would have to be made each time any motion in the universe moved to a different position in order to allow someone to travel back or forward to that point in time with those exact motion conditions. This would certainly not work according to Occam’s razor or that the universe will always choose the simplest and most direct or efficient way to do things. This unimaginable amount of needless structural waste would be ridiculous. I can understand the desire of people to believe that they could go back into the past or into the future, but I might desire to have a kangaroo with wings that can fly me to exotic places on distant planets, but that desire doesn’t make it exist. The time dimension is the same type of thing. The multiverse concept is also in the same category. The universe is large enough as it is. Why clog up all of the actual valid concepts with all of the unnecessary and unreasonable baggage of these types of things that can never be tested or observed or experienced by us in any way even if they were to actually exist, which they don’t. The security on my computer prevents me from looking at videos on it. I will try to look at it when I get a chance to use a different computer.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta’s comments to me on his paper’s page:

Dear Paul

Thank you for all your elaborate replies. I will be keeping portion of your reply with my answer, so that it will not be confusing..

Your words…” Comment to your second comment

I can understand why you might say that much of what I said in this section of my comment is not...

view entire post

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta’s comments to me on his paper’s page:

Dear Paul

Thank you for all your elaborate replies. I will be keeping portion of your reply with my answer, so that it will not be confusing..

Your words…” Comment to your second comment

I can understand why you might say that much of what I said in this section of my comment is not required in your theory, but it would seem to me that at least a couple of parts of it would have to be included in your theory in order for it to conform to reality, such as:

during an interaction that transfers motion amplitude from one entity to another the motion generally transfers from the entity with the greater motion amplitude to the one with the smaller amplitude.

And: ………….. ”

You are taking every motion as some body-body collision result. In Dynamic Universe model these body-body collisions are not there. All the bodies travel according to the resultant vector of UGF.

We will definitely workout some portions to include them. But as it is it is ok for now except the correction you suggested in the previous reply. This concept of frequency changes near a gravitating mass are to be experimentally verified.

Your thinking is applicable to the inside portions of masses. They may answer some more questions, We have to check mathematically and verify them with some computer simulations. That will be next stage.

Thank you very much for all your time and blessings…

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 23:29 GMT

Dear Paul

Thank you for all your elaborate replies. I will be keeping portion of your reply with my answer, so that it will not be confusing..

Your words…” Comment to your third and fourth comments

I put these two comments together because they are connected in a way that you may not have noticed.

In your third comment:

First the idea that I brought in God to put something as his act when my understanding in some way failed is not applicable because, if you look closely, you will see that nothing in that comment is used in any way to explain the structure of the world. The only connection to the structure of the present world that we live in is that it is a temporary structure meaning that it would naturally effectively come to an end through the long term process of its actions. This would happen with or without God. The rest is some of what I have found in my research about God, which is one of the avenues of understanding that is also valid to advance the progression of science. ”

Super Galactic Structures are formed due to gravitation. Dynamic Universe model explains these without any problem, they don’t collapse. They move around eath other.

………The understanding of the cause of the universe is the most basic and important scientific question to answer. Everything else expands from that point. It is obvious that there are really only two possible answers to that question. The first is that it was created by a very intelligent and powerful God and the second is that it came about from some natural chance occurrence…….. ”

God will tell the answers if we meditate. The Universe was not created at one stroke.

At this point enough is known about the extreme complexity of the structure of the universe and the living creatures within it to easily come to the reasonable conclusion that it is a very intelligently designed and built structure that is well beyond chance probabilities of occurrence. When I first began to research how the world works, I found that at that time science was not advanced enough to logically be able to make that decision and most religious people that tried to convince people about God’s existence did not know much about the concepts of evolution, etc. The steady state theory of the universe also seemed to be contrary to the concept of God’s creation of the universe, so I tended to lean toward the natural science viewpoint. As time went on and scientific advancement showed that the universe had a beginning and began to unravel the true complexity of the universe and especially of living creatures, it became apparent that it could not have been generated by natural chance occurrences. Today I find that many scientists, especially those who work in genetics and associated fields have come to the same conclusion based on the impossibility of generating all of the needed parts to create the first living creature by chance actions. I find now that the scientists that still desire to believe in the natural creation concept are more and more trying to bend very well-known and easily observed scientific facts that work against the natural generation of the endless world and living creatures in it to make them look like they actually work for production of living creatures and an endless universe, etc….. ”

I am also a firm believer of God, He will give reply. In this paper I showed three properties associated with Universe, Reproduction, Random formation and Random ages of Galaxies. In Quantum Mechanics particles have associated information bits.

What do you say about these observations….

Some even try to attribute intelligence to the world that does not actually exist, etc. The information that I gave you about God and his purpose for creating the universe and us is only about what I have found out from my research in that area and mainly applies to his current and future relationships with us and what he says that he will do concerning the universe in the future, etc. It is my answer to the second most important scientific question, which is: Is there a purpose for the creation of the universe and for us in it? From what I have found the answer to that question is of much more importance to us than the first question because, if I am right, the life that we live in this world is only a very small part of what we can have, if we make the right decision. Not only that, being joined to and becoming a part of the one who is able to make this universe, and us, in a loving relationship with him and all other members also in an endless world without entropy, etc. is something I would not want to miss and I also desire that all others learn of this and also not miss it.

……….”

I don’t know what the purpose of living, reproduction probably…… Why I don’t know. It is a natural cause seen at the Universe level.

In your fourth comment:

You said that it is my duty to tell the people about what is right. I did that in the part covered by your third comment and you can see that the result is what I said it would be, if I go too far beyond currently accepted beliefs. Maybe I just didn’t use simple enough words. I have found that I can desire to save peoples’ lives as much as I can, but if they are determined to jump off of a cliff there is not much I can do for them in the long run, but I still try. Since you told me you are also a firm believer in God, I hope more of you than that. ”

Thank you once again for the blessings you are giving so kindly. I also work for the betterment of humanity. We have to find the way for the next generation … so that they can go further where we leave…

Thank you very much once again for all your time and blessings…

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

view post as summary

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 00:10 GMT

Dear Paul

Thank you for all your elaborate replies. I will be keeping portion of your reply with my answer, so that it will not be confusing..

Your words… …….Comment to your fifth, sixth, and seventh comments

I put these three comments together because they each only require short answers.

In your fifth comment:

It is not yet the best time for me to go into the big bang theory, but if you are interested in how the universe was made you can look at the Christian Old and New Testament scriptures. There are many places that give some parts of the information about it, but you could just start at Genesis 1, 1. What we call the universe is called the earth there. It includes the part of the earth that we can observe and also the hidden part that we can’t observe that generates the part that we can see.

………….

It would be very nice to study such Godly documents. I will surely take your guidance. Thank you for such nice offer. By the way I also read VEDAs. I suggest you search for ….. SRISTI SUKTAM from VEDAs. It starts with one want or desire, ICHHA . From that desire, the whole universe was created one by one…. I don’t remember exact words… All these are available on internet.

You don’t have to start Bigbang for that. You can start with Dynamic Universe Model.

…….In your sixth comment:

Thank you.

………….

Good discussion with you sir, thank you.

…….

In your seventh comment:

I did not know that you were only talking about the body to body collisions that are due to singularities.

………….”

There is a small difference between “Body-Body collisions which are singularities” and “all the masses are allowed on their Gravitation only”.

First one tell us why we are staying on earth and second one when all the bodies collapse in to single lump of mass.

In Dynamic Universe model all the bodies will collapse into single mass when there is a uniform density. But when all the bodies have different masses universe will not collapse, but all the bodies will be moving dynamically. They rotate.

Thank you very much for all your time and blessings…

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

view post as summary

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 00:51 GMT

Dear Paul

Thank you for all your elaborate replies. I will be keeping portion of your reply with my answer, so that it will not be confusing..

Your words…”

Comment to your eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh comments

I put these four comments together because they each only require short answers.

In your eighth comment:

Normally even stars that were less than 1 light year away from each other would tend to hold each other from moving away from the effective center of their mass by gravity. The stars could rotate around that center and, therefore not all come together at that center of mass, but any star that would begin to move away from that center of mass would have more mass in the stars behind it that would pull it back toward the center than stars in front of it that would try to move it away from the center. Once in stable rotation around the center of mass, it would take an outside source of energy (motion) of adequate amplitude to overcome the gravity pull to allow it to escape the gravity pull of the stars in the center of the galaxy area. What kind of dynamical forces are you talking about? I tried to find your paper that you mentioned on vixra, but was unable to find it. I did find a paper of yours titled “Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model and it gave more of an explanation of your theory, but seemed to be missing most of the actual data of the experiment. ………….

Thank you for such nice searching and time you spent on my papers in viXra. Whatever the data available on the internet, were put and shown. The same thing can be further done if there is more actual data was available. I hope you can help me. I sit here in the middle of India. I don’t have any other resource except internet. I am not a rich person; I am retired person from a steel plant. I am living with my savings….

…….

You have many good understandings, such as the fact that there is no space/time continuum, etc. The biggest problem that I see is the attempt to make the universe an endless time structure by trying to reverse the entropy operation of fusion in stars. To actually accomplish that would not only require capture of all of the energy emitted from the fusion reaction and all of the heavier elements produced by the fusion reaction, it would also require the addition of the extra energy required to force the reverse reaction to occur, much like in chemical reactions. That extra energy source would then be lost for future use and would thus run out at some point in the future also. It is just the nature of entropy to make things run down, such that all interactions cease in the long run. ………….

Thank you for your blessings once again sir. You also have a good understanding…

Time is endless, but unidirectional. There is no going back in time. All the chemical reactions are unidirectional.

Once a star loses all its energy it will cool down, form some solid mass like Earth or Jupiter. The lost energy will be converted back into matter due to Gravitation and UGF. This converted matter will form lumps like we stay on earth, these lumps collect some more particles … new stars will be formed…like this cycle goes on…

…….

In your ninth comment:

You are welcome. ………….

……. Ok sir………….

…….

In your tenth comment:

The use for gravitational nulls will become apparent to those who need and are able to use them when that time comes. Feel free to speculate.

………….

It will good idea for a new Science Fiction novel…!!!

…….

In your eleventh comment:

That is a general problem that I have also had and I believe that others have also had. If you do a paper that is not restricted in that way I suggest that you give some details as to how the data figures about those galaxies are generated. ”

Thank you very much for studying my paper so thoroughly and giving esteemed questions. I am just giving two reported cases of Galaxies / Clusters of Galaxies which are being generated after Bigbang

[35] Rakos, Schombert, and Odell in their paper ‘The Age of Cluster Galaxies from Continuum Colors’ Astrophys.J., 677 , 1019, DOI: 10.1086/533513, e-Print: arXiv:0801.3665 [astro-ph] | PDF arXiv:0801.3665v1 [astro-ph] 23 Jan 2008

[36] C. PAPOVICH et el, CANDELS OBSERVATIONS OF THE STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF CLUSTER GALAXIES AT Z=1.62, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3794v2.pdf

See the CANDLES web pages also for simple language explanations.

My abstract also gives real data…

If you need further data , I will give you….

Thank you very much for all your time and blessings…

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

view post as summary

My comment to Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

Dear Satyavarapu,

I am glad that I could be of help concerning your paper. The problem in papers like these is that when they contain an error, those who read them don’t know if you just made an error or if your understanding is actually wrong, which can affect their acceptance of the concepts that you are trying to get across to the readers of your papers. I thought it was likely to be just an error. Hopefully, correcting it will give future readers a more positive reception of your concepts.

Rather than going back into any of the other things that I mentioned previously, I just want to cover the main thing that I wanted to bring out, which is that when the fusion of 2 hydrogen atoms into a helium atom occurs in a star, most of the mass or matter that was originally in the hydrogen atoms remains in the star in that helium atom. The helium atoms that are produced in that way can also fuse into heavier atoms and this process can continue up to iron. Iron and the atoms that are heavier than that are too close to the center most stable point in the atomic scale to be able to fuse because it would actually take the addition of more energy to cause them to fuse than would be freed in the fusion reaction. When all of the lower elements have been fused, the end result is that most of the matter that was in those lighter elements, is now stored in the new midrange atoms that have been produced. If you could somehow cause all of the matter that had been converted to energy to convert back into hydrogen matter and if that amount of hydrogen matter was equal to the amount that was originally present, then you would have all of the original hydrogen plus all of the newly produced midrange atoms that were produced by the fusion process, which would mean that there would be an increase in the total amount of matter in the universe created from nothing. In your theory you say “This is a nonexpanding universe and matter need not be created to keep the density constant”. In this nonexpanding universe the continual increase in the amount of matter that would be created in the form of these newly created midrange atoms would continually increase the matter density of the universe. It would ultimately fill up all of the empty space with this matter and the functioning of the universe would likely break down long before that point.

There is only one way that you could get what you want and that would be to somehow break down all of those new midrange atoms back into hydrogen atoms, but that would be a transformation that would be contrary to entropy because they contain less energy that could be freed by the conversion process than the conversion process would consume. This would mean that extra external energy would need to be provided that was more than had been freed as energy radiation from the fusion processes that caused the generation of the midrange atoms in the first place. This is because you would have to add back all of the energy that had been freed by the fusion process in order to restore the extra energy that the hydrogen atoms require that is greater than what the midrange atoms require, which is just the amount that had been freed by the fusion process. You would then still need to add an additional amount of energy that would be needed to cause the process to operate in the direction contrary to the natural entropy direction of flow of energy. The additional energy that you would need would have to come from somewhere in the universe and it would eventually be used up. The universe would still run down and cease to function.

What would actually happen, however, is that most of the energy that had been freed by the fusion process would be scattered throughout empty space and would not be converted back into hydrogen. The matter density of the universe would then remain the same, but all of the hydrogen and the other lower elements that can fuse would eventually be converted into the midrange elements that can’t fuse and the stars would all go out. There is just too much empty space for the energy photons to disperse into and too few very large masses that would generate very large and strong gravity fields to in any way convert the photons back into matter particles to allow any very large percentage of them to be converted back into matter. I know that is not what you want to hear, but I believe that if you look at energy photon dispersion in open space per unit of distance from the source, etc. and analyze the percentage of the total space in the universe that contains the strong enough gravity fields to do the conversions, you will find that I am right about it. In addition you would need to consider all of the energy photons that strike objects in the universe, such as those that interact with atoms on the earth and are either completely absorbed or experience frequency decreases as a result of giving up some energy to an electron in an atom, etc.

Much of the rest of your theory is good, however, except as pointed out earlier.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta’s comment to me on his paper’s page:

Dear Paul,

Thank you very much for such nice question. Whatever you are thinking that is NOT a problem in Dynamic Universe Model; is not a problem at all. I am reproducing your full post here with my answers embedded; I did not remove any portion of your nice thinking and questions. Very good study....

view entire post

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta’s comment to me on his paper’s page:

Dear Paul,

Thank you very much for such nice question. Whatever you are thinking that is NOT a problem in Dynamic Universe Model; is not a problem at all. I am reproducing your full post here with my answers embedded; I did not remove any portion of your nice thinking and questions. Very good study.

Your words……….

I am glad that I could be of help concerning your paper. The problem in papers like these is that when they contain an error, those who read them don’t know if you just made an error or if your understanding is actually wrong, which can affect their acceptance of the concepts that you are trying to get across to the readers of your papers. I thought it was likely to be just an error. Hopefully, correcting it will give future readers a more positive reception of your concepts.

……………

Reply……………….

I am very much thankful to you, I want analysis of this model…..

Your words……….

Rather than going back into any of the other things that I mentioned previously, I just want to cover the main thing that I wanted to bring out, which is that when the fusion of 2 hydrogen atoms into a helium atom occurs in a star, most of the mass or matter that was originally in the hydrogen atoms remains in the star in that helium atom. The helium atoms that are produced in that way can also fuse into heavier atoms and this process can continue up to iron. Iron and the atoms that are heavier than that are too close to the center most stable point in the atomic scale to be able to fuse because it would actually take the addition of more energy to cause them to fuse than would be freed in the fusion reaction. When all of the lower elements have been fused, the end result is that most of the matter that was in those lighter elements, is now stored in the new midrange atoms that have been produced. If you could somehow cause all of the matter that had been converted to energy to convert back into hydrogen matter and if that amount of hydrogen matter was equal to the amount that was originally present, then you would have all of the original hydrogen plus all of the newly produced midrange atoms that were produced by the fusion process, which would mean that there would be an increase in the total amount of matter in the universe created from nothing. ……………

Reply……………….

Thank you very much for nice thinking and trying to analyze this model.

As you have nicely mentioned here, matter will be formed from energy only it is not from nothing. No matter will be formed from nothing in Dynamic Universe Model; the energy will change its form from one state to another only. The fusion and fission reactions will happen according to Atomic physics. If there are some good unsolved problems we can try together. Lets discuss ……………….

Your words……….

In your theory you say “This is a nonexpanding universe and matter need not be created to keep the density constant”. ……………

Reply……………….

Yes, matter need not be created. Universe converts energy into matter and matter will be converted to energy in a cycle. The Universe can be expanding or contracting depends on the overall status of the dynamical forces that are moving different bodies in different ways. Each body movement will depend on UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) acting on it at that moment at that position, which changes dynamically………………….

Your words……….

In this nonexpanding universe the continual increase in the amount of matter that would be created in the form of these newly created midrange atoms would continually increase the matter density of the universe. It would ultimately fill up all of the empty space with this matter and the functioning of the universe would likely break down long before that point.……………

Reply……………….

No no no, not that way. Overall energy will remain same.

Your words……….

There is only one way that you could get what you want and that would be to somehow break down all of those new midrange atoms back into hydrogen atoms, but that would be a transformation that would be contrary to entropy because they contain less energy that could be freed by the conversion process than the conversion process would consume. This would mean that extra external energy would need to be provided that was more than had been freed as energy radiation from the fusion processes that caused the generation of the midrange atoms in the first place. This is because you would have to add back all of the energy that had been freed by the fusion process in order to restore the extra energy that the hydrogen atoms require that is greater than what the midrange atoms require, which is just the amount that had been freed by the fusion process. ……………

Reply……………….

This is what exactly happens in SUN and Stars, matter will be converted to energy

Your words……….

You would then still need to add an additional amount of energy that would be needed to cause the process to operate in the direction contrary to the natural entropy direction of flow of energy. The additional energy that you would need would have to come from somewhere in the universe and it would eventually be used up. The universe would still run down and cease to function. ……………

Reply……………….

No sir, not that way, the energy balance will be maintained

Your words……….

What would actually happen, however, is that most of the energy that had been freed by the fusion process would be scattered throughout empty space and would not be converted back into hydrogen. ……………

Reply……………….

I got this similar doubt initially about 25 years back when I was working out with this model. What I found in my simulations is different. Probably those sets of Simulations were not published.

What I actually found was astounding. That electromagnetic photon was that was radiated out was pulled back into Universe. I checked the case when the radiation was radially out from the center of the Universe. Then also this radiation came back. Then I was satisfied and started telling the world about this model

That is one of the foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model; Ours is closed universe, no engr goes out.

Your words……….

The matter density of the universe would then remain the same, but all of the hydrogen and the other lower elements that can fuse would eventually be converted into the midrange elements that can’t fuse and the stars would all go out. There is just too much empty space for the energy photons to disperse into and too few very large masses that would generate very large and strong gravity fields to in any way convert the photons back into matter particles to allow any very large percentage of them to be converted back into matter. I know that is not what you want to hear, but I believe that if you look at energy photon dispersion in open space per unit of distance from the source, etc. and analyze the percentage of the total space in the universe that contains the strong enough gravity fields to do the conversions, you will find that I am right about it. In addition you would need to consider all of the energy photons that strike objects in the universe, such as those that interact with atoms on the earth and are either completely absorbed or experience frequency decreases as a result of giving up some energy to an electron in an atom, etc. ……………

Reply……………….

No,no,no… Not that way… Dynamic Universe model don’t say that way. I hope I cleared all your questions and doubts…..

Your words……….

Much of the rest of your theory is good, however, except as pointed out earlier. ……………

Reply……………….

Thank you very much for the nice study of Dynamic Universe Model. Thank you for your time you spend on this model. THANK YOU FOR THE NICE COMPLEMENTS……

I hope I cleared them all YOUR DOUBTS, if you have any further doubts, lets discuss …

Best regards

=snp.gupta

view post as summary

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 01:44 GMT

Dear Paul,

I also observed this problem of Logging out many times; this feature needs correction by FQXi software group…

Probably we have to communicate them….

Best

=snp.gupta

My comment to Satyavarapu on his paper’s page:

Dear Satyavarapu,

I don’t think that you understand what I am trying to say to you, so I will try using a different approach. For the most part, fusion does not actually change matter particles into energy photons. In a new star that has not converted much hydrogen into higher elements; the star is mostly composed of hydrogen. A basic hydrogen atom contains one proton and one electron. ...

Dear Satyavarapu,

I don’t think that you understand what I am trying to say to you, so I will try using a different approach. For the most part, fusion does not actually change matter particles into energy photons. In a new star that has not converted much hydrogen into higher elements; the star is mostly composed of hydrogen. A basic hydrogen atom contains one proton and one electron. In the star the temperature is high enough to convert the atoms into plasma. Plasma is atoms with the electrons stripped off of them. This means that the star contains free protons and free electrons. The first reaction is that two protons come together to form a nucleus. One of the protons decays into a neutron and a positron and neutrino which are both matter particles are given off as part of the process. This creates a deuterium atom, which is just a hydrogen atom that contains a neutron. Notice that we started off with two matter particles and still have two matter particles. We have just changed from two atoms to one atom. The energy that it takes to bind two particles together into one atom is less than the energy required for the two separate atoms, so some energy is released, but some of it goes into the neutron because it has a greater mass than the input proton had, some goes into the neutrino, which would usually completely leave the star because they do not interact very much and are extremely low in mass, and some would go into the production of the positron, which would interact in a short time with one of the electrons in the plasma and they would both be converted into photon energy (a total of about 1Mev or million electron volts). The only part of the released energy that did not come from the freed up binding energy was the ½Mev that came from the conversion of the electron into photon energy. The next step is that the deuterium atom joins with another proton to form a Helium atom with just 1 neutron. A gamma ray energy photon is also given off because the energy required to bind the single Helium atom together is less than the energy of the separate proton and the deuterium atom combined. This gamma ray contains about 4Mev and comes completely from the savings in binding energy. The next step is for 2 of the above helium atoms to join together to produce a helium atom with 2 neutrons. The 2 extra protons are ejected. The protons carry off most of the freed binding energy about 15 to 20Mev in the form of kinetic energy or their motion. Notice that in the whole process the only matter particles that were converted into energy photons were the 2 electrons for a total of about 1Mev. All of the rest of the energy that was freed was from the lower amount of binding energy that is needed by the larger single atom than was required by the several individual atoms. None of the hydrogen protons are converted into energy photons. The whole fusion reaction to generate a helium atom freed up roughly 60Mev. If just one proton was converted to an energy photon it would free up over 938Mev. You can see that the idea that the hydrogen atoms have been converted into energy photons and the energy photons would then be converted back into hydrogen atoms is completely false. Instead many hydrogen atoms have been combined together into fewer heavier atoms freeing up a small amount of energy in the process because the fewer heavier atoms require less total binding energy than the many more lighter hydrogen atoms required. For the most part, all of the matter is still there in the star it has just been compacted. It actually takes 4 hydrogen atoms (protons) to produce 1 helium atom. 2 of them are needed just as they are in the helium atom and the other 2 are converted into neutrons. The 4 protons contain a total of about 3753Mev. The fusion reaction only freed up about 60MEV. Are you saying that a 60Mev energy photon is somehow converted up in frequency until it is up to 3753Mev and then is converted into 4 protons somehow? This would mean multiplying its energy by about 63 times. That certainly would not be energy conservation. If that were to somehow happen you could get all of the original hydrogen back, but you would still also have the original 4 protons locked up in the helium atom in the star. This would effectively mean that you would have doubled the amount of matter. The problem is that it is not a cycle of changing matter particles to energy photons and then changing the energy photons back into matter particles. You are not seeing that the hydrogen atoms are not really being converted into energy photons. They are just being compacted into heavier atoms and only the savings in the required amount of binding energy is being radiated in energy photons. All of the hydrogen’s matter particles are still in the star except for a few electrons. I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Dear Alexey and Lev,

I read your paper and you bring out several good points in it, such as that science has a blind spot because it has neglected to develop an understanding of the connection between thought and matter, etc. The same type of blind spot exists concerning the connection between the understanding of the universe and the things concerning God. I notice that you like many...

view entire post

Dear Alexey and Lev,

I read your paper and you bring out several good points in it, such as that science has a blind spot because it has neglected to develop an understanding of the connection between thought and matter, etc. The same type of blind spot exists concerning the connection between the understanding of the universe and the things concerning God. I notice that you like many others think of mathematics as a beautiful thing and that sometimes after math has been designed to model some part of the structure of the universe that development will lead to the development of other math that at the time has no practical use, but later new understandings about the universe can use the new math to model that new understanding of the structure of the universe. It, therefore, seems to predict new understandings about the universe’s structure. I always desire to trace such things back to the source that causes them. When I did, I found that it was not the math developing the patterns of understanding about the universe, but the flow of the structural understanding that was built into the structure of the universe itself that allowed it to be followed to previously not understood patterns that exist within it. The math just contained that flow because it was made to be a model of the universe. It was just that man was paying more attention to developing the math’s built in flow as a model of the universe than observing the flow that was demonstrated in the observations of the universe itself. The universe is designed in such a way that the things that we can observe work in similar ways to those that we cannot observe. It is also built in such a way that much of what we cannot observe directly is observable once we discover the hidden keys to the methods to do so. As an example, we can only see a small portion of the photon frequency spectrum, but at the proper time when we were ready, we were given the ability to make devices that now allow us to observe the previously withheld information about the universe that had been built into our structure in such a way that it had previously limited us. When I saw these things, I began to look at the universe as something very special in that it looked like it was designed to lead us to understand it over time by giving us such keys that are built into it that work in coordination with the various types of blindness that are built into our structure. It was like slowly giving us keys to open new doors in our cage that allows us to then enter into the next larger and more elaborate room at the proper time when we are ready and need it. When I looked for the source of these things in the universe, I found that its structure starts out very simply with only basic motions, as its base material, which exist and move in a spatial system. These motions are then combined in various ways to build energy photons and matter particles in a hierarchical structure. The hierarchical structures continue to proceed through the atomic level and the molecular level to the large scale combination level that we mostly live in and observe directly. One thing in the universe’s structure that did not seem to conform to its complex level of construction was that it could be seen that it was designed to be a temporary structure that was designed to wear down over time and to eventually cease to function. The entropy that causes this to happen also made it impossible for it to have constructed the living creatures within it because it works to destroy and break down such complex high potential energy structures. It became very apparent to me that the universe did not build these complex life structures itself or even the complex hierarchical structures that it is composed of. All of these things ultimately brought me to the conclusion that the universe had to have been constructed by a being external to it, who designed it and us for our benefit in some way to prepare us over time to fulfill some purpose that we were designed to fulfill for him. I found various patterns built into the structure of the world that gave me some concept of his nature and structure, so then I began to look at information that was said by various groups to have been given to man by God. In the Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament, I found what I had been looking for. Not only was the forming and structuring of the world described correctly in these 2000 year old books in details that are beyond man’s current understandings, but information that I had seen in the universe’s structure such as that the invisible things of the world and even things about God himself can be clearly seen by the things that were made, etc., as I had observed in its structure, were all explained also. As I read on, I found that God explained that his purpose for creating this world was to build a body for him to dwell in and he made us to become members of his body. Once he has made all of the body members he needs he will ultimately destroy this world and make a new bigger one without entropy in it that will not end, for us to live in with him without end. It all fits together perfectly. I know I risk being too theological, but it is what I have found and come to understand over many years of research to get to the source understanding of it all. Of course this is just the bare minimum highlights. There is so much more to it all than that, but I usually only share such things with those whom I know are interested, so I don’t waste my time and the time of those who have already made up their minds to reject it, but I am always ready and willing to share with any who are interested in understanding.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Dear Satyavarapu,

What happens in the core or other levels in a star depends mostly on its size and mass. Small stars less than ½ the size of the sun can only fuse hydrogen because they do not have enough mass to generate the pressure and temperature needed to fuse helium. Stars the size of the sun can fuse hydrogen and helium, but can’t fuse any larger atoms, as an example. Each time...

view entire post

Dear Satyavarapu,

What happens in the core or other levels in a star depends mostly on its size and mass. Small stars less than ½ the size of the sun can only fuse hydrogen because they do not have enough mass to generate the pressure and temperature needed to fuse helium. Stars the size of the sun can fuse hydrogen and helium, but can’t fuse any larger atoms, as an example. Each time a heavier element is fused in a star it gives off less energy than the fusion of the previous next smaller atom. To say it in a different way, when you fuse helium atoms you get less energy freed up by the fusion process than you would when you fuse hydrogen atoms. You can still get some freed up energy by fusing atoms up to iron. Large stars actually do fuse iron, but they do that just before they explode in a supernova. When they fuse the iron it takes more energy to fuse it than is freed up, so the net effect is to cool the core, etc. When the core cools it cannot resist the pull of gravity, so it collapses. The end result is the supernova explosion. The fusion of iron and the lighter elements can produce elements up to about zinc by various processes. The larger elements are generally considered to be mostly made in the supernova explosions, etc.

When you say “Initial electrons, protons, neutrons and neutrinos formations are sufficient, I don’t think 4 proton Helium nucleus needs to formed. I did not work-out full details yet” Are you thinking that you would be able to up shift the frequency of the 60Mev photon high enough to generate all of those particles? If you are, I believe you are wrong in that assumption. First you would not need to produce neutrons or neutrinos because those were not originally present. They were created from some of the binding energy that was freed up as part of the fusion process. To make the 4 protons and 2 electrons to restore the amount of hydrogen to space that was transformed into the helium atom (which would still be in the star) would require that a 60Mev photon would have its frequency up shifted to about 3753Mev or close to 63 times its original frequency. It would likely require a very large mass to make such a large frequency change possible. That large mass would be exerting a great pull on the photon and it would likely pull the photon into itself before it could generate that large a frequency change. If the photon did escape the inward pull, it would then be subjected to the continual pull of the large mass as it traveled away from it and that pull would then down shift the photon’s frequency again back to the 60Mev it had at the start. If it was somehow converted into the protons and electrons while its frequency was still up shifted, the matter particles would lose their speed of light motion as part of that process and gain a much larger mass effect than the photon had and would, therefore, then be pulled into the large mass that had upshifted the photon. It would likely be only very large stars or black holes, etc. that would have any chance of producing that large of a frequency upshift, so the new matter particles would either be pulled into the black hole and lost or pulled into the large star and fused along with its other hydrogen. That might make the large star be able to burn longer before it consumed all of its fusion sources, but it would not spread new hydrogen back into space to make new stars. If that really worked, very large stars should be able to attract all of the photons that they emit back into themselves converting them back into protons and electrons on the way back and then continue to burn forever, but it has been established that such very large stars actually have very short lifetimes on the order of 3 Million years compared to a life of about 10 billion years for a star the size of the sun. That is a very good observational indication that it doesn’t actually work the way that you desire it to work.

When you say “Good thinking, there can be other ways.” What are those other ways?

Most of the heavier elements especially those up near and including uranium are generally not fused in stars as a normal part of their fusion process. Even large stars cannot generate the pressure and temperature needed to produce these heavy atoms. They are mostly produced in supernova explosions, etc. The earth is much too small in mass to generate the pressure and temperature necessary to even fuse hydrogen into helium.

There are two groups of people who I have found usually strongly desire to have the universe to have always existed and to continue to always exist. The first are those who want to believe in the natural origin to the universe and the life that is in it. This is because if they can convince people that the universe always existed it removes the need for a creator of it and if they can convince people that it has been in existence for some extremely long time it makes it easier to try to rationalize that life could have come about from random natural processes, etc. The second are those who have religious beliefs that require an eternal universe because their belief includes such things as reincarnation, etc. that would not work if the universe came to an end, so I can understand the reason for your hope. In the past I leaned toward belief in the naturalist concept, but as more information came to be understood about the complexity of the universe and about its need for a beginning and later the understanding that it was made to be temporary due to entropy, etc. and then the great complexity of the structure of living creatures began to be understood, it was just unreasonable for me to hold onto that belief in the face of all of that evidence that it all had to have been created by a very intelligent being.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Dear Dizhechko,

I read your paper and find it very interesting. It is very appropriate to start your paper with the scripture quotes that you used, especially if you really understand their true meaning and significance. God describes his structure to us as: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. He tells us that...

view entire post

Dear Dizhechko,

I read your paper and find it very interesting. It is very appropriate to start your paper with the scripture quotes that you used, especially if you really understand their true meaning and significance. God describes his structure to us as: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. He tells us that he is composed of three parts. About the Father the scriptures say: God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. He is called: the invisible God. After Jesus had been resurrected and he appeared to his disciples they thought he was a spirit, but he said to them: a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have. The scriptures also say that God created all things by Jesus Christ. The Father is invisible, not made of the matter that our bodies are made of, and is the one who created all things and he used Jesus Christ (his Word) to do it. When you speak, the words that you speak are your output to interact with that which is outside of you. God’s Word is his output to interact with that which is external to him. Jesus (the Word) said: I am the way the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the father (God the Spirit) but by me. It also says: there is one mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus (the Word). Jesus also said: I am the light of the world. God is saying that he only interacts with the external world that he created through his Word. His Word is the mediator between him and that which is external to him (his creation). God says that he made us to be members or parts of his body. The Holy Ghost is the Holy image of God. People can be filled by the Holy Ghost and they then are moved by God to do his will as his body members. Jesus explained that relationship with God in this way: The Son (Jesus) can do nothing of himself, but as he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: Those who receive and believe God’s Word as their Lord and Savior become his body members and are adopted sons of God, so these things also apply to all of his sons, so the third part of God is his body. God also said: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. God says that the invisible things about him and even the things concerning his eternal power and God head can be clearly seen by looking at the things that are made by him. This means that we can expect to see images of God recorded in the things that he made. When we look at the most basic structure of the universe, we can see this pattern. At this level there are 3 most basic structures. These are fields, energy photons, and matter particles. The fields are invisible, but they hold everything else together. The energy photons are the mediators between the fields and the matter particles, and the matter particles are the body members that make up the structure of things, so knowing what God tells us about himself can also give us understanding about the creation that he made. Note that he said that the invisible things can be clearly seen by the things that are made. This tells us that even things that we can’t observe can be understood because they work in similar ways to the things that we can see. This is a principle that has been observed at all size scales. The second example of an image of God’s structure is in the hierarchical structure of the universe. The basic particles can’t be seen by man, but the atoms can interact with both the basic level that they are directly composed of and also the large scale level because you can put a large number of atoms together to make a large scale object that can interact with the large scale structures, such as man and those large scale objects make up the main body of the universe. A third example is within the structure of living creatures. There are the very small living creatures that we can’t see, such as bacteria. Next there are larger creatures that live off of the very small creatures, but are big enough for us to see, and then there are the large scale living creatures, such as man that make up the main visible body of living creatures. Another example of an image of God’s structure in the world is in the structure of man, whom God even mentions in the scriptures is an image of him. Man has a spirit that generates his purposes and intents. These are communicated to his soul, which translates them into thoughts that the body can understand and then sends them to the body. The body then acts according to those thoughts to carry out the purposes and intents of the spirit. Our body is made of flesh and bones (matter). God said that he formed man out of the dust of the earth (matter) and then breathed the breath of life into his nostrils and man became a living soul. The soul, therefore, is part matter (the brain) so it can communicate with the body and part spirit so it can communicate with the spirit, which is not flesh (matter). God says that the body without the spirit is dead, so your body cannot survive without its connection to your spirit through your soul. God’s Word is also part spirit, so he can communicate with God and part flesh, so he can communicate with his body members. That is why we cannot communicate directly with God because he says that his thoughts and his ways are higher than ours, so we cannot understand him directly, but must go through the translation by his Word. Now you can see that when Jesus said: I am the light of the world. He is giving information that tells us one of the images of him as the mediator that is in the world. Of course, 2000 years ago when the scriptures were made, people had very little understanding of the composition of light and could only understand what he was saying in terms of the fact that they knew that light allowed them to see other things in the world and thereby brought understanding to them, which is what the mediator does. He transfers information to us about the one who created the universe, but whom we can’t directly communicate with.

It appears that you are still at the stage where you think that motions must have something else in existence as a substance to move in like the motion contained in a moving car, etc., so you visualize that space itself has or is some substance that can contain motions that rotate in it to make matter particles. In reality, the purpose of space is to provide positions that motions can be located in and can then move from their current position to the next one as they continually change from one position to the next in the direction that they are traveling in. Motions are existent entities of and in themselves and don’t need any external source or support of their motion from outside sources, such as space. Their motion is built into their structure. One problem with the concept of rotation to create matter particles is that basic rotation like the earth on its axis does create a static mass effect due to its angular motion, but that effect is not equal in all directions. As an example if a force was applied to the earth straight down on its north or south axis point, it would be easier to move the earth than if the same force was applied to some point on the earth’s surface where it would try to change the direction of the earth’s axis of rotation. In order to get a uniform static mass that is the same in all directions you need to have a 3 dimensional cyclical motion pattern. After examining the structure of basic motions I have come to the conclusion that they are existent entities in themselves and only need empty space to be positioned in and move in. The only thing that is actually conserved in interactions is the total amount of motion. The total number of motions could also be conserved, but there is no way that man can currently make the observations that would determine that one way or the other at this time. The problem with motions is that cyclical motions like rotation, etc. require repetitive interactions because a cyclical motion must reverse its direction periodically in each dimension that it takes part in and a motion’s direction information can only be changed by an interaction. Without an interaction a basic motion will continue to change its position in the same direction with the same motion amplitude (speed). It can read its current position information and can change it in accordance with its current motion amplitude and directional information, but it can’t change its motion amplitude level or directional information. Motion amplitude and direction can only be changed by an interaction. Because energy photons and matter particles both require cyclical motions it takes some thought to come up with a way that they can be built out of simple motions and operate properly, but it can be done. I have given a model of how it can be done in my contest papers on this site. The model that I have given explains the fixed speed of light and both the wave and particle behaviors of energy photons and matter particles. It also explains how an energy photon can be changed into a matter particle and vice versa and how they both can be changed into basic motions and vice versa. The motion structure of fields is also explained. It also explains why an interaction between 2 particles can generate several different possible outcomes and what causes the different probabilities of the occurrence of each outcome. This can be done because it goes to the level of structure below what is currently observable by man in this world. It is the motion interactions that occur at this level that generate the multiple possible outcomes and it is the structure of the interactions that generates the occurrence probability of each outcome. This allows the use of the parts of quantum mechanics that are valid to model these things and at the same time gets rid of all of the useless quantum gibberish that is currently associated with and called a part of quantum mechanics, such as uncertainty principles, the idea that things don’t happen until they are observed, quantum entanglement problems, and the lack of understanding of wave/particle duality, etc. I hope that this can help you.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Dear Dizhechko,

You are wise to understand that you are not worthy to preach the Word of God because you have also sinned. We are all in that condition, which is why God had his Son Jesus Christ (the Word of God) live a sinless life as a man in this world and then offer himself up to die for us, so that we could receive him as our Lord and Savior and ask God to forgive our sins in his name...

view entire post

Dear Dizhechko,

You are wise to understand that you are not worthy to preach the Word of God because you have also sinned. We are all in that condition, which is why God had his Son Jesus Christ (the Word of God) live a sinless life as a man in this world and then offer himself up to die for us, so that we could receive him as our Lord and Savior and ask God to forgive our sins in his name and have our sins forgiven. Once we then receive and understand his Word and love him, he promises to come into us and live in us, which converts our spirits to do his will. Then he promises that God the Father (God the Spirit) will also love us and come into us and raise up our mortal bodies to do his will. Once this is accomplished, God the Father shows his Son what he is doing and the Son tells us and we then do God’s will, which includes preaching the Gospel to others, so they can also be saved and joined to him as his body members. It is then actually God preaching the Gospel through us, so our worthiness is no longer of any importance. Like everything else there are more details, but that is the general overall way it works. In my paper I covered one place in the scriptures where God talks about the creation of the world at the beginning of Genesis. I will repeat that part here: Although the heaven is mentioned here to show that the creation includes both it and the earth, the words that follow concern only the earth. At that time, even though the earth was already created in the past tense, it says that it was void and without form. This means that the earth had the function of containing things that have forms or shapes, but it was empty. This describes an empty spatial system. He then says that darkness was upon the face of the deep. This means that the earth contained something called the deep, which has a face or surface. Next God says that his Spirit moved upon the face of the waters. This makes it clear that the deep is composed of what God calls waters and that his Spirit moved upon its surface. This signifies his first addition of motion into the earth. This motion would generate sub-energy particles in the universe, which God refers to here as the earth. Next God says let there be light and there was light. This tells us that the first motion that was inputted into the world was not in the form of light because that still needed to be done later here. Most who read this part only look at the surface and are amazed that God could bring light into existence by just speaking the words, but if we look a little deeper we can see that he is giving us scientific information that would not have been understandable to those who first heard it over two thousand years ago, but should be clear to us now. When you speak, you output motion that is in the form of waves of air called sound waves. This is a perfect way to say that God added motion to some of the sub-energy particles, that he had previously created when he moved upon the face of the waters, to make them go faster than the speed of light so it would be transferred to their fourth dimensional motions to create the wave functions that made those sub-energy particles turn into light photons. Next God divided the light from the darkness. This is a good description of adding more motion to some of the light photons with the proper angular motion component to cause motion to be transferred to their fifth dimensional motion and change them into matter particles which become dark because their light photons are trapped in the cyclically closed curved paths of the matter particles. Much more information is given in both the Old and New Testaments, which all leads me to conclude that the universe was not created by chance, but by God. Notice that it was God the Father (The Spirit of God) who inputted the motion into the world that created the sub-energy field particles that are an image of him. It was God’s word who inputted the motions that created the light (energy photons) that created the image of him. Then it says that God (all three parts of him) inputted the motion that created the matter particles that are an image of his body. This would signify the condition of his body members when they are filled with the Holy Ghost and have God the Son and God the Father living in them and are, therefore, complete members of his body. That is all that I had room to put into my paper, but it continues in the scriptures from there. God separates that first input of motions from the next part by the end of the first day. Next God (his Word) said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament heaven. At this point the waters that he is talking about are the same ones that the motions for the basic particles had been inputted into. These waters are a hidden part of the earth’s creation that we cannot see or observe. The motions that are put into these waters generate the basic particles as their outputs into the spatial system that we exist in. They make up us and everything else that exists in that spatial system. God divided those waters into two parts by placing the firmament in the middle so that there are waters beneath the firmament and other waters that are above it. The firmament is a part of the earth that God later in the fourth day places the sun, the moon the stars, etc. in and he calls it heaven. It is the earth’s heaven. This is not the heaven that God mentioned that he created at the beginning of the chapter. It is a part of the earth, so all that we can see as the universe is actually just the earth. That is then the end of the second day. In the third time division or day God gathered the waters under the firmament together and made the solid land and the liquid seas. This looks like the time that the planets, such as the earth were made. He then made the plants. God does not tell us what he did with the waters above the firmament. I think I know, but I am not sure and if I am right it is something that it is not yet time for man to know about, so I won’t go into that any more now. In the fourth day God puts the things in the firmament as I mentioned earlier. In the fifth day he made the water creatures and the birds. In the sixth day he made the other land creatures and then made man in his image. There are other places where God tells us about the behind the scenes structures that we cannot observe that generate the world that we live in as its output. One book that contains quite a lot of detail is the book of Ezekiel and another one is the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ. There are many other places also that give some additional information. God made the world, so he knows how everything will happen in it. He tells us many things that will happen in the future in the scriptures. Since it was written about two thousand years ago some of those things have already happened now, but some still will happen in the future. God did not make this world to be endless because it is made as a place for him to use to make a body for him to live in. We can become parts of his body. Once he has made all of the parts of his body, he will take all of the motion that he originally took out of himself to use to make this world back into himself, which will destroy this world. He will then make a new larger and better permanent world without entropy, so it can exist without end for him and his body members to live in together without end. I think that will be much better than living in this world where things keep breaking down including our present bodies over time.

Mathematical formulas are another form of words. Everything that can be expressed in a formula can also be expressed in other words and vice versa. Both are parts of man’s abstract language structure. I can write 1+1=2 or one plus one equals two and they both mean the same thing. God used his Word to create the whole universe. Anything that we put out of ourselves to interact with the world outside of us is a form of a word. If you are outside of your house and you see the mail man coming up to your house and you put out your open hand for him to place your mail into it, you are telling him to give you your mail directly instead of putting it in your mail box just as surely as if you spoke the words to tell him to do that. When the mail man approaches your house with your mail in his hand, he is telling you that he has your mail without even saying a spoken word. All actions are forms of words. It used to be that if you told a computer to print something for you it would come out in the form of words on paper, but now it could be in the form of some object printed on a 3D printer, which is just another form of a word or output from the computer. I read your essay and it is good that you see that motion is the basis of all things. You still believe that a motion must exist in something else, which is why you want to make space be a substance that motion can move in. The next step is to understand that motions can exist by themselves in empty space. They do not need to move in some other object. All of the other objects are themselves made up of motions. God took part of his motions to use to make this universe. God exists without end, so the motions that he is made of also exist without end or to say it in more scientific terms motions are always conserved. They are the only things in the universe that are truly conserved. All you need to make a universe is the empty spatial system with positions in it for the motions to be in and to continuously move from one position to the next in the direction that they are traveling in at the speed that they are going in and the actual motions that do those things. Space does not need to be a substance. It just needs to have a lot of empty positions in it to hold a lot of motions. The motions are the substance. It is good that you see that cyclical motions are needed to make things like matter particles and energy photons, etc. The problem is to figure out how to make them because basic motions always travel in straight lines. A cyclical motion generally requires periodic reversal of the direction of motion in all of the dimensions that participate in the cyclical motion. Motions can’t change their direction of travel themselves, however. Their direction can only be changed by an interaction. This means that the key to generating the directional changes that are needed to generate the cyclical motions required by energy photons and matter particles, etc. is to find a way to generate periodic motion directional changes. I give examples of how this can be done in my contest papers on this site. The structural points of motions are not infinitely small, but they are very small. Each motion contains a certain strength or amount of motion that I call its motion amplitude. It is what causes one motion to move faster than another one. This motion amplitude can vary from zero to an amount that generates the amount of motion that is called the speed of light. The motion amplitude contained in a motion can be changed, but only during an interaction. I notice that you use a spatial pressure to cause the curved motion that produces the static mass effect of matter particles. It would seem to me that if that pressure is the same throughout space like air pressure is on earth, it would not cause the curved motion because it would be pressing equally on all sides of the motion, which would result a in net pressure of zero because the pressure on one side of the motion would be offset by the equal pressure on the opposite side. I may not be understanding how that pressure is applied, etc., however. What would cause that pressure and how would it work? If space is some kind of substance that transmits motions, then the next question would be what is that substance? That could add another undefined existent entity into the structure of the universe. In my theory, space is just space and motions are just motions. I only add a small fourth dimension to generate cyclical motion that generates the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects of energy photons and matter particles and a fifth dimension to generates the cyclical motion that generates the three dimensional curved motion of the matter particles. Note, the curved motion that generates the static mass effect of matter particles must be three dimensional instead of just a rotation, which is two dimensional, in order to produce a mass effect that is the same in all three dimensions. Both of those dimensions just provide spatial positions for motions to move and interact in. Everything can be defined in terms that are familiar and commonly understood. I may have just missed it, but I did not see much about how energy photons work in your theory. Please explain to me how they work in your theory in terms of the motions that they are composed of.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Dear Satyavarapu,

I believe that in an earlier comment to you I said that it looks like there is some observational evidence by man that gravitational red and blue shifts are generated in photons as they pass through gravitational fields. As I looked into it a little more, however, I found that it has not yet been determined either way in all of man’s experiments that I have seen so far....

view entire post

Dear Satyavarapu,

I believe that in an earlier comment to you I said that it looks like there is some observational evidence by man that gravitational red and blue shifts are generated in photons as they pass through gravitational fields. As I looked into it a little more, however, I found that it has not yet been determined either way in all of man’s experiments that I have seen so far. So far, all of man’s experiments that I have seen indicate that the red and blue shifts are of equal magnitude when two transmitter receiver combination units are used and are blue shifts when a photon is emitted (transmitted) from a source that is located where the gravitational field strength is low (such as out in space far from any large gravitational sources) and received in a location where the gravity field strength is high (such as near a star). They are red shifts when a photon is emitted (transmitted) from a source that is located where the gravitational field strength is high (such as near a star) and received in a location where the gravity field strength is low (such as out in space far from any large gravitational sources). The problem is that there are two main theories and some variations of both of them. One of those theories is that the photon’s frequency is increased (blue shifted) as it travels from a lower field strength area into a higher field strength area and decreased (red shifted) as it passes from a higher field strength area into a lower field strength area as it travels through the gravitational field. The other theory is that the photon’s frequency is shifted at the time it is emitted and received and is not shifted at all during its travel. Although it is possible to determine which theory is the correct one (one method requires the ability to generate gravity fields and to turn them on and off as desired, which man in this world cannot currently do, as an example), man in this world has apparently not yet made that determination. I must, therefore, stay within the bounds of man’s current technological advancement level as much as I can, so I can’t go farther into that area with you at this point. It looks like the above mentioned red and blue shifts are the ones that you consider small compared to the large blue shift that you mention as part of your theory. I have not seen any indication that man has observed such a large blue shift. Can you tell me where I can see the results of any observations that would support your great blue shift when a photon is close to a star that is not lost when it leaves the close proximity to the star and travels out into space where the gravitational force is much less? If this great blue shift exists it should not be difficult to observe it. It should be as simple as measuring the red or blue shift of the light photons from a star when the path of its light to the earth is very close to the sun during a total eclipse of the sun, so that the star’s light photons would receive the great blue shift from traveling close to the large mass of the sun on the way to the earth and then measuring the star’s light again (about six months later) when the earth is between the star and the sun, so its light would not pass close to the large mass of the sun on its way to the earth. The great blue shift that you predict should be obvious if it exists by comparing the two results. I believe that many experiments have been done during total eclipses of the sun for various reasons, such as to measure the curvature of photons in gravitational fields, etc., so the data may already be there if spectroscopic readings were done. The data for the stars when they are not aligned closely with the sun should be even more readily available. I do not currently have time to check it out because of the other project that I am currently working on now, so I will leave that up to you to check out. I would like to know what you find out about it, however.

If that great blue shift actually occurs, the frequency upshifting of the energy photons would increase the amount of energy in the universe. This extra energy would then be changed into matter particles (protons and electrons, etc.), thus restoring the energy to its normal level, but the extra matter particles that were created from the energy photons would increase the total amount of matter in the universe. As these new matter particles are fused in stars they are combined into atoms of midrange elements in the stars. When the stars burned out these midrange elements would be scattered into space and some would be taken into new stars, which would make those new stars denser or more massive than the previous generation of stars. As the midrange elements built up more and more in space, each generation of stars would be more massive than the previous generation until all new stars were very massive. They would fuse all of their fusible source material very quickly in order to counteract the great gravitational pull of their large masses (in as little as 3 million years compared to 10 billion years for a star the size of the sun). When they have fused all of their fusible material, most of them would end in a super nova that would generate the higher mass atoms. These higher mass atoms would then be taken into new stars and make them even more massive. At some point the mass of stars would become so great that no fusion reaction could keep them from collapsing in on themselves. Since your theory does not allow for black holes to be formed, the only other possibility would be very large supernova type explosions, which would create even more of the heavy element atoms. The process would speed up and build up to the point that no new stars could be formed due to the great amount of non-fusible matter present in the universe. I have not yet seen any part of your theory that would prevent this from happening. If there is such a part of it that would keep that from happening please let me know how it works and what if any observational data is available to support it. I am not worried about any need to break up the heavier atoms that are produced by the continual fusion of the newly created protons, etc. to produce more protons for fusion. If the gravity upshifting that you mention actually worked, it would, as you say, produce all of the new protons, etc. needed to continue the fusion process. What I am concerned about is that this continual increase in the amount of matter in the universe as a result of the continual production of the midrange atoms by the fusion process in the stars and the latter production of the heavy elements as these midrange atoms increased the masses of new stars causing them to end in supernova explosions would ultimately build up so much non-fusible matter in the universe that new stars could not be formed because they would be so massive that they would quickly collapse and explode in supernova type explosions before they could fuse much of their fusible material. As I said above I have not yet seen anything in your theory that would prevent that continual increase in the amount of matter in the universe. Your theory would need to have some mechanism that would eliminate this extra matter in order to compensate for the new matter that would be produced by the photon up shifting and conversion of the up shifted photons into matter particles, which would then be fused in the stars to continually produce this extra midrange atom matter. Just letting it be spread out in space would not work because over a long period of time all of space would become filled with it. So again, I ask you to show me how your theory would take care of that problem.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Dear Paul,

6.

…………… Your words……….

……………………. I must, therefore, stay within the bounds of man’s current technological advancement level as much as I can, so I can’t go farther into that area with you at this point. It looks like the above mentioned red and blue shifts are the ones that you consider small compared to the large blue shift that...

view entire post

Dear Paul,

6.

…………… Your words……….

……………………. I must, therefore, stay within the bounds of man’s current technological advancement level as much as I can, so I can’t go farther into that area with you at this point. It looks like the above mentioned red and blue shifts are the ones that you consider small compared to the large blue shift that you mention as part of your theory. I have not seen any indication that man has observed such a large blue shift. …………..Reply……………….

You are correct. Till now no such experiment was conducted by scientific community. It is only a prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, and if it is found true, then we can get all these benefits of unexplained parts of science.

7.

…………… Your words……….

…………………….Can you tell me where I can see the results of any observations that would support your great blue shift when a photon is close to a star that is not lost when it leaves the close proximity to the star and travels out into space where the gravitational force is much less? …………..Reply……………….

It is only a prediction, No experiment is conducted till now as far as my knowledge goes.

8.

…………… Your words……….

…………………….If this great blue shift exists it should not be difficult to observe it. It should be as simple as measuring the red or blue shift of the light photons from a star when the path of its light to the earth is very close to the sun during a total eclipse of the sun, so that the star’s light photons would receive the great blue shift from traveling close to the large mass of the sun on the way to the earth and then measuring the star’s light again (about six months later) when the earth is between the star and the sun, so its light would not pass close to the large mass of the sun on its way to the earth. The great blue shift that you predict should be obvious if it exists by comparing the two results. …………..Reply……………….

Thank you, a possible Good experiment is proposed by you, nice. I think there can be other ways also possible….

I will continue

Best

=snp

view post as summary

Dear Satyavarapu,

2. One thing to remember is that experimental results that are not connected directly to reality, such as computer simulations allow for the introduction of extra levels of error production, such as in conceptual errors in how the world that is being modeled actually works and mathematical and programing errors, etc. that can give invalid outputs that can be misleading. ...

view entire post

Dear Satyavarapu,

2. One thing to remember is that experimental results that are not connected directly to reality, such as computer simulations allow for the introduction of extra levels of error production, such as in conceptual errors in how the world that is being modeled actually works and mathematical and programing errors, etc. that can give invalid outputs that can be misleading. It is best to stick as much as possible to data that comes from actual real world observations. I can sympathize with you on the lack of support from the established scientific community.



I agree with you that FQXI has allowed the expression of new alternative concepts through their contests that don’t always agree with mainstream scientific beliefs, which is a very good thing. It would be good if the scientific community as a whole was more open in this respect. There should be a part of the scientific community that honestly looks at and evaluates all new concepts and then gives feedback to the authors of those concepts, both about any current problems that they can solve and also about any problems with the new concepts that cause them to not agree with observed reality, etc. This should all be public, so that the authors of the concepts and others who may be considering the same or similar concepts can be guided by the knowledge gained from these conceptual evaluations. In addition to this, all currently believed scientific concepts should be continually evaluated in the light of all new observational data and the results should also be published publically. Any problems with existing generally accepted concepts should not be hidden as is often the case today, but should be widely published with the understanding that they need to be solved to make the understanding of those concepts sure and complete. Of course, to support this added scientific level, science would need to be better funded than it presently is.

Since I am trying to transfer information that is beyond man’s current level of knowledge and, therefore, comes close to man’s maximum believability threshold, I try to stay within man’s current level of understanding as much as I can in other areas, so as not to increase the probability of rejection of the new information. Even that has not worked very well so far, however, for the reasons that I described to you in my last post to you, etc. Banishing myth, dogma, and superstitions do not depend only on giving out the information that does so, but also requires the reception and acceptance of those that the information is transferred to. If no one listens to the provided information or if those who listen ignore it, the information will not help man to advance and man will not be prepared for optimum advancement at the appropriate time and many will suffer loss. It would be good if you could take in and understand the information that I have provided in my papers in the FQXI contests, but I am not overly optimistic about that likelihood. So far you have not yet accepted information about concepts that are commonly understood by man, such as energy conservation and entropy, etc. I doubt that I would get anywhere if I started to give motion structuring concepts, etc. I don’t want to just encourage you and others to continue in concepts that will not work, but to be willing to continually look at their concepts in the light of observable data and be willing to change them as needed to conform to observable reality. When the concepts have received any necessary changes so that they agree fully with observed reality, then I desire that you be encouraged to continue in them.

3. If only my work would accomplish the desired goal, but for things to work for the true benefit of man the acceptance of the information cannot be forced on man, but must be willingly accepted and understood. I doubt you or most others in this world would like it much if the information was placed in your mind and you were forced to believe it against your will. Just the concept of thought transfer would be considered to be an invasion of the mind by most. There would be great fear, etc. if forced belief was also used.

4. If man turns out to be incapable of understanding the basic information concepts provided and then advancing that understanding to higher levels without continual guidance from without, it is not likely that man would be considered able to add any new level of understanding as would be required for equal participation with others that can do so.

5. You are right. Space does not need to bend. It just needs to have positions in which motions can exist and move.

6. I am not saying that the concept of God is wrong. I am just saying that one must start by gaining understanding of how the observable world works and then the structure and operation of the world will reveal if it could have come about naturally or if it requires that God created it. I spent over twenty two years learning about the world’s structure and ultimately came to the conclusion that because of its extreme complexity and hierarchical structure it could not have come about from natural chance occurrences, but had to have been created by an extremely intelligent God, especially the extreme complexity of even the simplest living creatures. I could then look at the various religions ‘texts that said they were the word of God and see if what they said about the world agreed with observations. This led me to the true understanding of God.

7. That is a good beginning goal. I have found that when that understanding is completely achieved, it leads to the next goal that is more important than the first, which is to understand God as much as possible.

8. When I say great gravitational blue shift I am referring to its greater magnitude in comparison to the normal red and blue gravitational shifts that you refer to as the gravitational red shift even though it also produces a blue shift of equal magnitude in the opposite direction of travel of the photon (when it is travelling toward the center of gravity). In all of man’s current observations that I am aware of, gravity is a balanced structure that increases the energy of an entity that is traveling toward its center and decreases the energy an equal amount when the entity travels away from its center. This means that an entity that travels close to a gravitational source first sees its energy increased during its interaction with the gravity field and then it gives up that increase in energy as it travels away from the field, so that at the end of the interaction when it has completely left the field, its amount of energy is returned to the original amount that it had before it entered the field, thus conserving energy. In your previous comment number 8, you said “Thank you, a possible Good experiment is proposed by you, nice. I think there can be other ways also possible….”. I was just wondering what other experimental ways you were referring to.

9. In your answer to my red and blue shift comment last month, you called it the gravitational red shift. The point that I am trying to bring out is that the experiments show that the blue shift that is detected in photons that are traveling toward the center of gravity is equal to the red shift detected in photons that are traveling away from the center of gravity. You seem to believe that the detected blue shift is much less than the red shift because you call it the gravitational redshift, but the experimental observational data shows the blue shift and red shift to be equal in magnitude. I am not currently where I can access the actual data, but I believe that one of the first experiments was called the Pound Rebka experiment and was done way back in 1959. There were also other tests done, some in space. I will have to let you look them up because I cannot access that data from here at this point.

10. Here I am talking about the same effect, but you change from calling it the gravitational red shift, which you seem to think is very small, compared to the blue shift, which you say will be mostly blue and much larger. Are you saying that there are two different effects with different causes or just that the red shift will be smaller than the blue shift? The experiments that have been done to date show them to be equal in magnitude.

11. There are several problems with your concept of energy conservation. First, in order for the total amount of energy to be conserved or continually remain the same, each time an energy photon is upshifted, thus increasing the amount of energy it contains, the same amount of energy would also need to be simultaneously destroyed to maintain the same total amount of energy in the universe. To allow this to occur, there would have to be a causal link (some form of communication) from the photon upshifting to the energy destruction mechanism. Since the two could be separated by large distances, this could not work without faster than light information transfer. In reality energy conservation is achieved in each and every interaction between two or more entities. This works because energy conservation is just a part of energy transfer between entities. When an entity experiences an increase in its energy content, it is the result of reception of energy from another entity that has transferred some of its energy to it. As a result, the entity that transferred some of its energy to it, experiences an equal decrease in its energy content. All energy conservation is, therefore, a local effect of energy transfer in an interaction. Since the energy photon only interacts with the gravity field of the large gravity source, it would have to receive its energy upshifting increase from that field, which would result in an equal decrease in the gravitational field strength. If this energy was not returned to the gravity field in some way, the field strength would decrease more and more with each photon upshifting. Over a long period of time, large gravity fields would all measure to be smaller than they should considering all of the matter contained in them and its density, etc. I am not aware of any observational evidence to support that, however. Secondly, for the most part, matter is not converted to energy in the stars. The energy radiated from the stars comes mainly from freed binding energy not from matter particles being converted to energy photons. Most of the matter particles and all of the energy contained in them (in their structure) still remain in the stars. Thirdly, there is no conservation of the ratio of energy photons to matter in the universe. When you understand it all, it is obvious that the only thing that is conserved is the total amount of motion in the universe. This motion can be stored in the structure of matter particles, energy photons or, in sub-energy particles (fields) or in the linear or angular motions of these entities in space (kinetic motion), but it is all motion. Motion can be changed into any of these forms from any of these forms, but the total amount of motion remains the same. As an example, when two protons are given linear kinetic motion in opposite directions at close to the speed of light, so that they interact with each other, several new matter particles and energy photons can be created from the kinetic motion that they possessed going into the interaction. This means that the number of matter particles and energy photons in the universe is increased by the interaction. The total amount of motion that went into the interaction still remains the same in the output entities, however. Some of it has just been converted into the structural motions contained within the new matter particles and energy photons. The total of the kinetic motions of the particles is decreased by an equal amount as a result of the conversions that occurred in the interaction. This shows that the number of energy photons and matter particles or their ratios to one another are not conserved in the universe, since the ratio of the number of energy photons produced in such an interaction to the number of matter particles that are produced by the interaction is not always the same in each interaction. The ratio of production can vary from one interaction to another interaction, so the overall ratio is not maintained at the same level.

12. I do not follow your logic concerning how the star’s velocity would affect the amount of blue or red shift that would occur during the upshifting, since it seems that you are not talking about the Doppler Effect. Please explain step by step the details of how the upshifting works in simple basic concepts that show what is going on inside of the energy photon during the frequency upshifting.

13. As I pointed out above, there is very little matter to energy conversion in stars. It is mostly just the freeing and radiation of binding energy in the atoms in the stars as they are compacted into more efficiently packed atoms that require less binding energy. It is, therefore, mostly an energy to energy conversion that leaves the matter particles intact. They are not converted into energy photons. This is the case for both the fusion and fission reactions. That is why the total amount of matter in the universe would continually increase if your photon upshifting actually worked to produce the energy to matter conversion that you mention. This idea of matter to energy conversion taking place in stars on a large scale is one of the most obvious errors in your theory because it does not actually happen. Also as I mentioned above, the photon upshifting and energy to matter conversion that you mention could only occur if the gravity field strength of the large gravitational objects was decreased by the amount of energy that the upshifted photons received in the upshifting interaction.

It is true that the cost of many experiments can be very great.

It is true that low wages for most workers make it very difficult if not impossible to save up enough money for retirement and no or very small pension benefits make things worse. The lowering of interest rates is also a worldwide policy of governments. It does not look like that will change for the better any time soon either because large worldwide corporations and the very rich have manipulated governments into giving them large amounts of money in subsidies, etc. that have caused the governments to be greatly in debt to them. If a government increases its interest rates, it must pay out more money to them, which causes it to go further into debt.

14. It is not just my feeling that I am giving you. Nuclear fission is relatively well understood by man at this point. Certain isotopes of certain atoms have specific probabilities to break down or fission into certain lighter atoms. The fission process often occurs through many intermediate stages of breakdown, but ultimately they end in the production of stable isotopes of lighter atoms and the process then stops there. Many experiments have been done to confirm these results.

If you can afford it, it is best to buy the land because otherwise if you have a bad crop year or two in a row, you could lose everything because you can’t afford to pay the rent on the land, if you have no crops to sell. Also, once you have paid the land off, you won’t have to pay rent and even if you have to buy the land on time, the amount you pay per year to buy the land over time should be less per year than the cost of rent, if you can get the credit at a reasonable rate. If you buy the land on time you still have the risk of losing it all if you have bad crop years before you get the land paid off, however. Once the land is paid off, you only need to have enough to pay off any annual property taxes, etc. Of course that is how it is in the U.S.A.; it may be different in India. Be sure to check your agreement and be sure that you won’t be required to continue payments for the rest of the agreement year or you could find yourself having to continue to pay for the land rent for the rest of the year even if you give it up because of bad crop years, etc.

15. You are right that the frequency shifting would not directly produce higher atoms. If it worked, it would only produce energy photons that contained enough energy to be converted into matter particles (protons). The protons would then be fused into midrange element atoms in stars. The buildup of the midrange element atoms in the universe over time would cause more of them to be taken into stars, thus making the stars masses greater. More of the stars would become massive enough to end in supernovas. When the supernovas exploded at the end of their lives, more of the heavier elements would be produced by the explosions. Since the fusion process in stars converts the new protons into midrange atoms in the stars and the fission process only mostly breaks down some of the heavier atoms down into the midrange atoms, there is no real mechanism to stop the continual buildup of midrange atoms in the universe. This is because the midrange atoms have the lowest binding energies, so that it takes the addition of energy to them to convert them into the low range fusible atoms or into the larger fissionable atoms both of which have higher binding energies that must be added to the midrange atoms to convert them. If a star began to use much of the energy it produced by fusion to make the lower fusible atoms from the midrange atoms, the loss of that energy would cause the star to cool down some and would, thereby, disrupt the balance between temperature expansion and gravity contraction in the star. This would lead to the destruction of the star. This actually happens in very large massive stars when they begin to fuse iron into larger atoms. The cooling thus generated, causes the temperature expansion in the star to be less than the pull of gravity, resulting in the collapse of the star, which ends in a super nova explosion destroying the star.

16. You are right that it can all be worked out, but I don’t think that you will be satisfied with the result, because the energy photon upshifting is contrary to energy conservation at the interaction level and the idea that the matter produced by fusion in the stars will somehow be broken down into energy photons is also impractical and contrary to entropy actions.

17. I have based my comments on what you have told me about the energy photon upshifting. So far you have not described the details of how this interaction functions. As I explained in this comment the only way that energy could be conserved in the upshifting interaction between the gravity field and a photon is if the energy that is received by the photon comes from a transfer of that energy from the gravity field. This would result in an equal decrease in the energy contained in the gravity field. If this occurs, all gravity fields should be measured to be weaker than would be expected from the amount of matter and that matter’s density that they contain. I am not aware of any such observational results. So far the observed results of field strength agree with what would be expected from the matter construction of the large gravitational objects. That being the case, the only way that your theory could conserve energy is if there is a mechanism to transfer that energy back into the large gravity fields to restore them to their normal level. You have not yet mentioned any such mechanism. Your explanation so far of some vague breaking effect does not explain what actually transfers some of its energy into the photon or how it does it in the interaction. I need you to explain these things to me. Otherwise all I can do is to look at the problem and come up with the only possibly workable solution that I can think of and then see if that could actually work. That is what I have presented above. Simulations can be made to simulate anything from actual reality to a complete fictional world such as in a video game, etc., so I mostly only trust in real world observational data.

18. Last month you said that fission would break down the midrange atoms, but as I have explained this would not work because fission only occurs naturally when the atoms that result from the fission interaction contain less binding energy than the binding energy content of the atom that was broken up to produce them. Since the midrange atoms contain about the minimum amount of binding energy, they can only be broken down into smaller atoms by adding extra energy to them to add additional binding energy back into them. If this happened in any large scale, the star’s fusion energy that would be consumed in the process would cause the star to cool down enough that it would become unstable and the star would be destroyed because the star’s temperature expansion effect would be inadequate to counteract the star’s inward pull of gravity. As I mentioned above this actually happens in very large stars when they are about to run out of fusible material and begin to fuse iron. The cooling effect caused by the energy that is added to the iron atoms to fuse them into higher atoms causes the collapse of the star ending in the supernova explosion that destroys the star. Although that example is about the extra binding energy that needs to be added back in to cause atoms in the minimum binding energy range to become atoms above that range, the same thing would apply to the addition of energy into atoms in the minimum binding energy range to cause them to fission into lighter atoms.

19. I am not sure what you are referring to here.

20. Just saying “No no no not that way…. No extra Super novae.” will not make it work that way. So far I see no valid counter argument.

21. You are welcome.

22. I have looked into the eternal universe concept for quite a while because when I began to look at man’s science the concept of a static never ending universe was the accepted theory. As time went on and more became to be understood about how the universe works, it became apparent that it could not be never ending. I have seen many suggest different ways to justify the never ending concept, but they all require the universe to work in ways that it does not actually work. So far your theory appears to be the same as the others. The computer model may produce a never ending universe within itself, but the model does not actually control the real universe. It can only be of any practical use if it behaves the same as the real universe does. There are still a few things to cover, but so far it doesn’t seem to work.

23. At this time, I could not go into the internal concepts of black holes, so that is ok with me at this time.

24. Again the “No no no not that way, you are confusing….” is not a valid counter argument. It tells me nothing about your objection to what I said.

25. If what I said actually happened, the time would come that there would be no place in the universe that was not filled with too much non-fusible matter to allow a new galaxy to form or take birth.

26. Please give the details of the upshifting interaction, so I can see where the energy that goes into the photons to upshift them actually comes from. A general explanation such as “The stars will give energy.

Depending on the energy requirement of particular ray the frequency shifting will take place” does not help any because the stars are very large and have very many types of interactions taking place continually. I need for you to tell me about how the specific interaction that upshifts a photon works and what the entity is that transfers some of its energy to the photon to upshift it.

I see your new comments, but I am sending the responses to just these in order to get it to you because it would take longer before I could get this off to you if I try to answer all of them now.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Dear Satyavarapu

I realize that the great blue shift that is predicted by your theory has apparently not yet been tested by observational experiments. That is why I take the approach of looking at its possibility of existence in terms of whether it is in agreement with well-established and tested scientific concepts such as energy conservation and entropy, etc. I have found that all...

view entire post

Dear Satyavarapu

I realize that the great blue shift that is predicted by your theory has apparently not yet been tested by observational experiments. That is why I take the approach of looking at its possibility of existence in terms of whether it is in agreement with well-established and tested scientific concepts such as energy conservation and entropy, etc. I have found that all actions are local and behave according to specific rules that are built into the basic structure of all things. I, therefore, start from the most basic interaction level that I can share with those involved and then proceed to the larger scale combination of interaction results with the larger world that they are a part of. For a concept to be a practical possibility, it must work on the local level in a complete flow of interactions that together build the complete conceptual structure. As an example, In order for the photon upshifting to possibly work, the photons must receive the energy that upshifts them from some source. They cannot just increase their own frequencies because that would increase the amount of energy that they contain, which would increase the amount of the energy in the universe, which would break the law of energy conservation. As you have described it to me so far, that source can only be the gravity field of the large gravity object. This would, however, lead to depletion of the gravity field over a long time through many upshifting interactions unless it is replenished by some other interaction that would transfer that amount of energy back into the gravity field. In most gravity field interactions, the gravity field transfers energy to an object as it approaches the field and then receives an equal amount of energy back as the object travels away from the field creating a completely balanced energy flow structure that leaves no loose ends. Your theory proposes a one way transfer that takes energy from the field and does not give it back in the normal way. This creates an imbalance in the interaction flow that would need to be explained in detail as to how the flow is restored to a completely balanced structure. The examples that I have given to you so far are intended to show how an imbalance in one small structural area can lead to very large negative consequences in the larger scale world. You have a tendency to explain things like energy conservation using a generalized large scale overall balancing concept, but such a concept can actually only work if it can be explained all the way down to the lowest local level because that is the way that the world works. The flow of structure is always from the lowest level up to the combination of low level structures into higher level concepts. You cannot actually build a car by putting an engine into a car body and putting wheels on it etc. You must start with basic materials and process them in many ways to get the finished materials that you need and then form them into the basic parts of the engine and car body, etc. You can then combine them together to build the engine and car body, etc. and then you can combine the engine and car body together into a complete car. If you start from the higher level of the engine and car body, etc., you will likely have many conceptual errors because you will not understand the restrictions that each part will impose on the other parts. It is sort of like starting with the overall concept of the car that you want to build and deciding to allow 1 square foot of space for the engine and then finding out that given your current abilities to build engines you need at least 4 square feet of space for the engine. If on the other hand you build the engine first and test it for power and required space for the engine that would produce enough power to be adequate for the car, you can then design the body light enough to be powered by the motor and with a large enough engine compartment to hold the required engine, etc. The same concept works when you are analyzing an existing thing and trying to understand how it is constructed and how it works, such as this universe. In this case if you start with the concept of energy upshifting without understanding how gravity fields and energy photons are constructed, how they can act individually, and how they can interact with each other, you will likely try to think of them in ways that would work with your theory, but are contrary to the way they actually are and how they operate in the real world. For example, you might imagine that a photon has a certain rest mass because that fits into your theory, when in reality a photon cannot have a rest mass because a rest mass is the mass that an object has when it is not moving or has zero kinetic motion. A photon always travels at the speed of light, so it cannot have its speed of light kinetic motion component removed and still be an energy photon, so it cannot come to rest and, therefore, it cannot have a rest mass. This means that any theory that is based on a photon having a rest mass is in error. A photon has a dynamic mass that is determined by the amount of a specific motion that it possesses that produces its frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects. The greater that this motion is, the higher its frequency is, the shorter its wavelength is, and the greater is its dynamic mass effect. When you consider upshifting an energy photon’s frequency, it is this motion that you are trying to increase. This can only happen during an interaction with some other entity. It can only be increased by a motion transfer to the photon from another entity in which the other entity experiences an equal decrease in its motion content, thus conserving the total energy or motion in the system.

It is good that your theory correctly predicts right answers to many problems because that likely means that it has many things right. That does not, however, mean that it is the completely right answer to all questions, etc. and can still have parts that are in error.

2. I hope the land rental and crop production on it works well for you.

3. Much about the nucleosynthesis is already commonly known by man today. It is mainly in the fine details that some confusion enters in because man on this planet does not yet understand the internal workings of matter particles, energy photons, and field structures, etc., and some of the problem is in semantics. As an example, the word energy is used to refer to the motion of large scale objects (kinetic energy), energy photons, and now even the rest mass of matter particles, etc. All of these things are actually composed of motions and it is really the total amount of motion that is conserved. When looked at from this perspective it is much easier to understand things. As an example, the nuclear binding energy is usually presented as though it is an energy that atoms possess that binds them together and must be overcome by the application of other energy to break the atoms apart, but in actual fact, the binding energy represents a loss or shortage of energy in an atom that must be added back into the atom to allow it to be broken down into its individual parts (protons and neutrons or lighter atoms, etc.). This is because the total amount of energy in the individual parts that make up the atom contain more energy than is contained in the atom that is built with them. As an example, the total amount of energy contained in two protons and two neutrons is greater than the mass of the helium atom that contains them. The Helium atom’s mass measures less than the total mass of the four individual particles from which it is composed. This is called a mass defect. That mass is, of course, equivalent to a certain amount of energy or motion. This is what allows nuclear fusion to work. I will try to give a simplified example of how it works. Each matter particle entrains or pulls sub-energy field particles and causes them to flow through it. This is caused by the internal motions in the matter particle that altogether make up the matter particle’s structure. There is a sub-energy input on one side of the matter particle and an output on the opposite side of it. Due to the curved motion of the energy photon that is contained in the matter particle as it travels in its enclosed cyclical motion path, the matter particle’s sub-energy input and output also move around that path. Due to the modulation of the sub-energy flow by the photon’s frequency and wave effects, the sub-energy output varies from a zero level to a maximum level and then back to the zero level in a sinusoidal manner. This is the particle’s internal field and would be associated with the strong force in man’s current level of understanding. The output of the particle’s internal field generates the particle’s external field structure. This takes the form of concentric spheres of varying sub-energy density that vary from a zero density level to a maximum density as you travel away from the center of the particle and then back down to a zero density level in a sinusoidal manner. The external field has to do more with the weak force in man’s current understanding, but there are overlaps in concepts. The matter particle is repelled by the innermost high density sub-energy sphere, so that it remains within that sphere. The outer spheres are where electrons are held in atoms, but for this discussion I will ignore them because nuclear fusion is more involved with the internal sub-energy field and the innermost high density sphere of the external field. If you join two protons and two neutrons together into an atom by nuclear fusion, their external sub-energy fields join together to form a single external sub-energy field structure. The matter particle’s internal fields repel each other, which keeps each particle’s internal motions from interacting with those of the other particles. The combined external sub-energy field contains more energy or motion than is needed to contain the particles within it. The result is that when one of the matter particles within the atom interacts with the high density sub-energy sphere, a larger than normal amount of kinetic motion is transferred into that particle. When it later interacts with the high density energy sphere, it now contains enough kinetic energy to generate adequate pressure on sub-energy particles in the sphere to allow an interaction to occur with one of the sub-energy particles in the sphere. The excess energy is then transferred from the matter particle into the sub-energy particle. This would give the sub-energy particle enough energy to travel faster than the speed of light, but instead its speed is increased to the speed of light and the rest of the energy is transferred to the place in it that generates the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects, so that the sub-energy particle is, thereby, transformed into an energy photon and travels off from the atom at the speed of light in some direction in space. In this way the external sub-energy field of the atom is stabilized at the proper strength needed to properly retain the matter particles within it. The energy that has been removed from the atom is the energy freed by the fusion process and is the binding energy. Since the sub-energy fields are parts of the matter particles and the atom and their motions add to their total mass effects, the mass of the atom has been reduced by the amount of the field that has been removed from the atom, which creates the mass defect. This is a simplified example of how it works and other modes of dissipation are possible, but it should give you a good idea of what happens. In order to break the atom into its constituent particles, you must add back the binding energy that was removed during the atom’s fusion formation because that extra energy is needed by the individual matter particles as parts of their external sub-energy fields when they are not joined together into an atom. In addition to this, other energy also must be applied to give the individual matter particles enough kinetic energy to leave the atom and to account for other losses, etc. This means that if a star created helium atoms by fusion starting with protons, it would require the use of more energy than was freed in the fusion process that created them, in order to convert all of those helium atoms back into protons. An article that gives an easy to understand explanation from man’s current level of understanding about the nuclear binding energy and the mass defect can be found at www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/binding_energy. If you look at the chart on the second page, either a proton or a neutron is called a nucleon. The mass number on the horizontal line refers to the total number of nucleons in an atom. The binding energy in MeV on the vertical line refers to the amount of energy that the atom has given up per nucleon in the atom compared to the amount of energy contained in the same nucleon if it is not in an atom. As an example, the 4He atom is at about 7MeV on the chart and contains four nucleons, so if it formed from two protons and two neutrons by fusion it would give off about 7Mev X 4 Nucleons = about 28MeV of energy in one form or another during its formation. In order to change it back into two separate protons and two separate neutrons by fission, you would have to add more than 28MeV to it. Notice that 58Fe (iron) and 62Ni (nickel) are at the highest vertical level on the chart. This means that these elements have the greatest loss or deficit of energy compared to all the other atoms. This means that you would have to add extra energy to them to get them to either fuse into larger atoms or to fission into smaller atoms. The reason that things work this way is because as you add more nucleons to an atom they take up more space this means that the innermost high density sub-energy sphere also must be larger. As it gets larger, its surface area increases, which causes its field strength per unit of area to decrease. By the time you get to the size of the iron atom, you get to the point where the field is about balanced at the right amount of energy in it. If you try to fuse iron into larger atoms you must add extra energy because the larger sub-energy surface of the innermost high density sphere requires that extra energy to provide an adequate field density to contain the nucleons within the sphere. On the other hand, if you try to fission iron, you must also add energy to it to restore the sub-energy field to that needed by the lighter atoms or the nucleons if it fissions all the way down to the separate particle level. Notice that the 238U (uranium) atom is lower on the chart than many smaller atoms. That is why it and some other heavy atoms can fission into smaller atoms and give off energy in the process because the smaller atoms that are produced require less energy in their smaller fields to be stable. You should now be able to see why small atoms fuse into heavier atoms and give off energy and large atoms fission into lighter atoms and give off energy, but those in the middle generally require the addition of extra energy to either fuse or fission because they are at the most stable size with the most stable external field structures. If you want more details about the structure of sub-energy field particles and the fields they inhabit, energy photons, and/or matter particles, my contest papers on this site contain more information.

The article mentioned above does not give the more detailed information that I gave above that explains what is happening inside of the matter particles and energy photons and about the structure of their sub-energy fields or how they work because man on this planet does not at present know about those things, so you will probably just consider them to be my theory and ignore them because I have not given a detailed math model of them, but I include them for the benefit of any who read this comment. My purpose here is not to give out to man a complete ready to use understanding of field structuring, fourth vector structuring, and fifth vector structuring, etc. It is just to give out some of the basic concepts in these areas of scientific development from which man can hopefully develop the full understanding of them over time. This means that man must develop the math models and other required tools, etc. himself. If I did all of that type of thing, man would have no way to prove the worth of his abilities and that is the test. When it comes to mathematically modeling the interactive flows of motions within a matter particle and the interactive interchanges of motion information entities during interactions between matter particles, new math processes such as path flow structuring work much better than man’s current math structures, but man will also have to develop such tools that are needed as part of the test. You are free to participate in that endeavor or to just ignore it and do as you desire. I expect that most will ignore it, but it only takes a few to change everything and they will deserve all of the recognition that they get for it. Of course, I may be wrong. It could be that man is just not able to understand and develop the detailed concepts from those that have been given. I hope that I am not wrong in believing that man can do so, however.

Once again I see that you have made many additional comments beyond the ones covered by this response, but I am sending this much now so that you get something and don’t think that I am ignoring you. I just still have limited time available to do this right now.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

1

Dear Paul,

Thank you very much for the esteemed reply. I still find in your reply, many of the same confusions you are repeating. They can be addressed only by experimental results nothing else. If you can conduct the frequency shift observations during solar eclipse, it is well and good. I cant do the observations….

…………… Your...

view entire post

1

Dear Paul,

Thank you very much for the esteemed reply. I still find in your reply, many of the same confusions you are repeating. They can be addressed only by experimental results nothing else. If you can conduct the frequency shift observations during solar eclipse, it is well and good. I cant do the observations….

…………… Your words……….

……………………. I realize that the great blue shift that is predicted by your theory has apparently not yet been tested by observational experiments. That is why I take the approach of looking at its possibility of existence in terms of whether it is in agreement with well-established and tested scientific concepts such as energy conservation and entropy, etc. …………………….

…………..Reply……………�
��.I already told this follows energy conservation law three or four times. I already gave my mathematics and logic. Hope you will follow logic. If it is wrong show me mathematically with your equations, why my equations are wrong.

2

…………… Your words……….

…………………….

I have found that all actions are local and behave according to specific rules that are built into the basic structure of all things. I, therefore, start from the most basic interaction level that I can share with those involved and then proceed to the larger scale combination of interaction results with the larger world that they are a part of. For a concept to be a practical possibility, it must work on the local level in a complete flow of interactions that together build the complete conceptual structure. …………………….

…………..Reply……………�
��.

Correct sir; Show me what is wrong with my equations….

3

…………… Your words……….

…………………….

As an example, In order for the photon upshifting to possibly work, the photons must receive the energy that upshifts them from some source. They cannot just increase their own frequencies because that would increase the amount of energy that they contain, which would increase the amount of the energy in the universe, which would break the law of energy conservation. …………………….

…………..Reply……………�
��.Not correct, Why total energy will increase? It consumes energy….. increase in energy will be done in stars (mass to energy conversion), You are confusing, Please show it mathematically

4

…………… Your words……….

…………………….

As you have described it to me so far, that source can only be the gravity field of the large gravity object. This would, however, lead to depletion of the gravity field over a long time through many upshifting interactions unless it is replenished by some other interaction that would transfer that amount of energy back into the gravity field. In most gravity field interactions, the gravity field transfers energy to an object as it approaches the field and then receives an equal amount of energy back as the object travels away from the field creating a completely balanced energy flow structure that leaves no loose ends. …………………….

…………..Reply……………�
��.

How that depletion will happen? Will some gravitation field of earth reduce after a rocket goes from earth or some debris fall on earth… Is it a new theory you are proposing…..?

Please support your theory with your mathematics, give some physical examples and some experimental evidences ……

Regarding giving and taking energy of photons other than Gravitational redshift, we will have to conduct observational experiment, I already told many times. If there is an experimental result already, lets discuss. But I don’t think any experiment was conducted till now.

5

…………… Your words……….

…………………….

Your theory proposes a one way transfer that takes energy from the field and does not give it back in the normal way. This creates an imbalance in the interaction flow that would need to be explained in detail as to how the flow is restored to a completely balanced structure. …………………….

…………..Reply……………�
��.

Yes sir, I explained it many times. The frequency shift will stay permanently…. It will not create any unbalance…

6

…………… Your words……….

…………………….

The examples that I have given to you so far are intended to show how an imbalance in one small structural area can lead to very large negative consequences in the larger scale world. You have a tendency to explain things like energy conservation using a generalized large scale overall balancing concept, but such a concept can actually only work if it can be explained all the way down to the lowest local level because that is the way that the world works. …………………….

…………..Reply……………�
��.

That’s correct, that’s way the Universe works according to Dynamic Universe model. No unbalance… You are confusing. You start with energy and come out mathematically…

7

…………… Your words……….

…………………….

The flow of structure is always from the lowest level up to the combination of low level structures into higher level concepts. You cannot actually build a car by putting an engine into a car body and putting wheels on it etc. You must start with basic materials and process them in many ways to get the finished materials that you need and then form them into the basic parts of the engine and car body, etc. You can then combine them together to build the engine and car body, etc. and then you can combine the engine and car body together into a complete car. …………………….

…………..Reply……………�
��.

Correct sir, but you don’t start building car from electrons and protons, there is level to start. You consider starting with metallurgical properties of materials for section of materials, not with atomic levels….

8

…………… Your words……….

…………………….

If you start from the higher level of the engine and car body, etc., you will likely have many conceptual errors because you will not understand the restrictions that each part will impose on the other parts. It is sort of like starting with the overall concept of the car that you want to build and deciding to allow 1 square foot of space for the engine and then finding out that given your current abilities to build engines you need at least 4 square feet of space for the engine. If on the other hand you build the engine first and test it for power and required space for the engine that would produce enough power to be adequate for the car, you can then design the body light enough to be powered by the motor and with a large enough engine compartment to hold the required engine, etc. …………………….

…………..Reply……………�
��.

Correct sir, I worked in engineering plant. Many times we design machines, computers using building blocks concepts, like ICs etc. Don’t worry. We will not start at atomic levels…

Thank you very much for your interest in my work,

Thank you for your valuable time you are spending on this concepts for the development of science…

I will continue for replying other portion of ASAP…

Best Regards

=snp

view post as summary

Dear Satyavarapu,

Your comment of May 9

1. It is good that you place the true knowledge and understanding of the universe as more important than money. This can, of course, be very difficult if you don’t have enough money to pay for necessary living expenses. For that reason I can have compassion on those who must make the decision as to whether to give in to the currently...

view entire post

Dear Satyavarapu,

Your comment of May 9

1. It is good that you place the true knowledge and understanding of the universe as more important than money. This can, of course, be very difficult if you don’t have enough money to pay for necessary living expenses. For that reason I can have compassion on those who must make the decision as to whether to give in to the currently accepted scientific understandings in order to be accepted by the scientific establishment and get adequate money to live and resources to do their research, etc. or to work elsewhere as you did in the steel plant, etc. and not have access to research facilities to do desired research, but be able to stay true to one’s understandings even when they do not agree with established scientific beliefs. The real problem is not so much in those who are weak and give in, but in a scientific establishment that is structured in such a way as to require such behavior of those who work in the field. I don’t mind challenges to the concepts that I am giving out to others, as long as they come from an honest desire to understand the concepts and determine if they are true and not just to try to undermine their acceptance by others in order to continue to propagate false beliefs in their place. Since I am just giving out the basic concepts and it is up to others to develop them with math models, etc. as I mentioned in my last comment to you, I can only give supportive information up to a point. Most of the information that I am giving is in accordance with existing observational data. It mainly gives explanations of that data at a lower and more detailed level than man’s current science level can do. The causes of such things as the specific multiple outcomes from a given interaction between two matter particles that are possible and the specific probability of each occurring can be explained in a straight forward way in terms of the motions involved and their specific positioning or relative phasing at the point of interaction, etc.

It is not necessary to find the actual start of a gravity field to observe the effect that I mentioned of an increase in energy as one travels toward a large mass and an equal decrease as one travels away from the field. You can pick any convenient distance from the large gravity field’s center of gravity and record the test object’s energy level at that point. You then record it again at its closest point to the center of gravity that it arrives at during its approach. Next you let it travel a distance in its travel away from the center of gravity that is equal to the distance that it traveled from your original chosen starting point distance from the center of gravity to the closest point in its travel and then record its energy at that point. The recorded data should show that the object has the same amount of energy at both the beginning and ending points and a greater amount of energy at the closest point. You could then logically extend the beginning and ending points out to any equal distance and expect that they will remain equal in energy. Of course, it would be wise to check it at several different equal distances from the closest point to the center of gravity to be sure that it checks out. If the objects path brings it close enough to any other large gravity force to produce a measurable effect on the object, then that effect would also need to be factored in to the measured results, of course. Although the UGF would have some effects on the experiment, if the large gravity field object was chosen, such that there were no other large gravity objects within several light years, the UGF effect would likely be too small to measure, since they decrease by the square of the distance. The starting and ending points of the experiment could be chosen close enough to the center of gravity of the large gravity object, so that the field strength of the gravity field would be strong enough throughout the distance traveled during the experiment to overpower any weak gravity effect from far away UGF objects. If you are looking for absolute distances, however, it depends on the age of the large gravity object and the speed of propagation of the gravity field. As an example, if a star like the sun is about four and one half billion years old and if the gravity field propagates or travels at the speed of light, then the beginning or ending of the field would be about four and one half billion light years from the center of the star. This would, of course, have to be adjusted to account for the motion of the star as a whole during the four and one half billion years. There would be other variables, but that would be a simplified example with enough detail to make it clear that each object’s gravity field only extends so far. It shows something that most people never consider. This means that if you look at a galaxy that is eight billion light years away, you cannot see any stars in it that are less than eight billion years old because the light from them could not have reached the earth yet. This means that if you wanted to look for other stars that came into being four and one half billion years ago, you could only find them in galaxies that are four and one half billion light years away or closer. If you look at the galaxy that is eight billion light years away, you might see stars that appear to be only four and one half billion years old, but since it took eight billion years for that light to reach us, the actual current age of the star would be twelve and one half billion years, so it very well might have burned out by now.

I generally don’t give math equations because generally I find man’s math to be too vague in its presentation to be easily understandable by most people, especially advanced math. You will have to generate the math yourself if you can’t understand the information that I am giving in English language form. I believe I gave it clear enough that its understanding should be obvious.

You are right that the gravity field of any object that is old enough and close enough to have reached the path of the test object would have some effect on the test. The farther away the object is and the smaller that its gravity field is the less would be the effect that it would have on the test. This means that most objects even those with large gravity fields that are billions of light years away would not likely measurably affect the test results because their gravity fields would be too dissipated by their great distances and small objects with small gravity fields would have to be much closer to cause measurable effects on the test results. You are right that the moon even though its gravity field is small can affect the tides on earth, but at the same time the other planets only have very small effects on the tides on earth even though their masses are much greater than he moon’s. This shows how much distance can affect the ability of a given gravity field to make measurable effects.

Although most of the hydrogen in the universe would have been created very early in the formation of the universe, the instabilities in the density of the hydrogen that would allow stars to ultimately form and the galaxies that would then form from the stars, etc. would develop over a very long time. This means that the continual increase in the formation of new stars and galaxies will go on for a very long time as new instabilities gradually form until a saturation point is achieved where most of the hydrogen is used up in the universe. The formation of new galaxies will then continually decrease in number per unit of time until there is no longer enough free hydrogen left to generate any more new galaxies. Since a large portion of the universe still does not contain galaxies, the process of formation of new stars and galaxies will still go on for a very long time before all of the hydrogen is used up.

Your comments of May 11

2. Much of this was explained in my previous comment where I explained that when 4 protons are joined together to form a helium atom, the matter particles are not changed into energy photons. Although several processes occur in which some of the energy that is freed is converted into other forms such as the energy added to two of the protons that converts them into neutrons and the creation of a neutrino, etc., all of that energy and the energy that is ultimately radiated away from the helium atom in the form of energy photon(s) that would be the energy that could potentially be upshifted by your proposed upshifting process comes from the excess energy present in the atom’s external sub=energy field due to the combination of the sub-energy fields of all four of the original 4 protons into a single sub-energy field that then contains more energy than it needs to contain the protons and neutrons within the nucleus of the atom and to some degree the kinetic motion that is contained by the 4 protons at the start of the process, etc. This means that the energy photon that could be up shifted is created by the conversion of the excess sub-energy field strength of the helium atom into an energy photon. None of the original 4 matter particles are converted into energy photons. Since the sub-energy field particles in the field travel around the high density sub-energy field spheres at about a ninety degree angle to any entity that travels directly toward the atom, they do generate some of the atom’s static mass effect, so when some of this field strength is dissipated by the radiation of an energy photon, the atom’s static mass is reduced also. This means that for the most part instead of matter being converted to energy, sub-energy field motion is converted to energy. If that energy is then converted to matter particles (protons) and those matter particles are then fused into more helium atoms, there would be a continual increase in the number of protons and neutrons in the universe. In order to restore the balance of the number of matter particles in the universe to the normal amount, you would need to convert the new protons back into some other form of energy that would ultimately be used to restore the sub-energy fields in the helium atoms back to their normal strength of motion and add some more kinetic motion to the atoms to allow them to be broken apart back into separate protons. The problem is that neither fusion nor fission breaks protons down into other forms of energy. To see what would happen if your theory is true at least as far as I understand it at this time, we can start from the fusion reaction in stars and go through one complete cycle. First, the large gravitational pull of the very large number of protons in the star pulls the protons toward the center of the star. This greatly increases the pressure on the protons, which also increases the temperature due to more protons per area of space in the star. The pressure and temperature eventually get high enough to allow fusion of protons into helium atoms through several intermediate steps. The fusion process transfers energy (motion) from the helium atoms’ sub-energy fields into the creation of energy photons that are radiated out into space. The energy photons travel close to large gravitational objects (mostly stars) and are up shifted in frequency by transfer of energy from the objects’ gravitational fields to a high enough frequency, so that they contain enough energy (motion) to allow them to be converted into protons. The up shifted energy photons travel close enough to an angular motion source that is great enough to cause them to be changed into matter particles (protons). The protons are taken up into new and existing stars by their gravity fields and are then fused into more helium atoms. The idea is that this cycle would continue without end. The most obvious problems with this scenario are:

1. There would be a continual increase in the number of protons in the universe. I see nothing in your theory that would in any way break them back down into the gravity fields of the large gravity objects. Fusion and fission could not break them down.

2. There would be a continual decrease in the strength of the gravity fields of the large gravitational objects. Note: the gravity field strength of a large gravitational object would not be depleted much from upshifting one energy photon in the same way that the fusion of four protons in a star into a helium atom would not do much to counteract the star’s contraction, but the continuation of a very large number of fusion reactions at the same time in the star can stop that contraction. Since all of those energy photons that are created by all of those fusion processes in the star would need to be upshifted and converted back into protons, this very large number of photons could greatly deplete the star’s gravity field and this would continue and get worse over time.

3. There would be a decrease in the sub-energy fields of the protons that are joined together into helium atoms, which would mean a continual increase in the number of helium atoms in the universe. If your theory would in some way break these helium atoms back down into protons, it would have to add all of this energy back into the sub-energy fields of all of the protons in the helium atoms and then add extra energy in the form of kinetic energy to separate the protons from each other.

The end result of this process would be a continual increase in the number of protons in the universe that would be stored in a continual increase of helium atoms in stars and a continual depletion of the gravity fields of large gravity objects. Of course this could not continue without end. I have left out several details, such as that in larger stars the helium atoms would fuse into larger atoms up to iron continually increasing the amount of them also, etc., but it gives the basic most serious problems.

3. I have not said that the upshifting of the energy photons would directly create midrange atoms. The upshifted energy photons would first have to approach near enough to a sufficiently strong angular motion source to allow the upshifted photons to be converted into matter particles (protons, electrons, etc.). The protons would then have to be taken into stars and fused into helium atoms. In larger stars the helium atoms could be fussed into larger midrange atoms up to iron. It is the fusion of these new protons that would continue to generate the midrange atoms. If you look at the binding energy chart in the article that I mentioned in my previous post you will see that these midrange atoms cannot be fused into higher mass atoms without adding energy to them and they also cannot fission into lighter atoms without adding energy to them. If a star tried to do either change on any kind of a large scale, the energy that it would use to do it would cause the star to not be able to have enough remaining energy to resist gravitational collapse and it would collapse and be destroyed in a supernova type explosion. This actually happens when a very large star starts to fuse iron.

As I mentioned in my previous comment, my position is to only give basic structural details, so I will not generally work in man’s math except as needed to make basic points clear. Even then I will generally stay with the use of only a level of math that the average person can understand and will define all math items and their units. Because of this I try to use math very sparingly because of the extra work involved.

Your comment of May 19

I have just about finished my project, so I will then have some more time to work with you if you still desire to do so. I am not in a position, however, to make long trips, such as to Los Altos for the event that you mentioned because my wife is getting a knee replacement surgery on July 24th, so I will need to be with her for the next several months while she recovers from it to help her to do what is needed to take care of her and to do the work that she usually does now. Of course, she will not be able to travel during that time either. It will likely be next year before her knee is fully recovered, but she also has back problems that cause her much back pain. If the doctors cannot find a way to relieve her pain, it will still not be practical for us to make long trips then either.

Your comments of May 21

A. When it comes to basic modeling concepts, there are two primary pathways that can be followed. The first is structural modeling, which involves gaining an understanding of the details of the structures involved and their action and interaction pathways. The idea here is to understand what things are made of and how it is that they are put together and operate that generates the output results or behaviors that result from their individual actions and/or the interactions between them. Once you understand these things it is relatively easy to integrate any newly understood structure into the system because its internal action pathways are already understood and can only generate interactions with other entities that are compatible with both its internal structure and the internal structure of the other entities that it can interact with. When the structures to be modeled contain cyclical motions in their structuring, path flow structuring modeling methods can work very well.

Path flow structuring builds the model structure through the generation of paths and their intersections or interactions. It works well with cyclical motion structures because once a path has been generated it is used over and over again continuously due to the repetitive nature of the cyclical motions that are involved. There are, of course their flow control choice structures, etc. that determine the path flow outcome of an individual entity’s flow through the entire path flow structure , which depends on the motion conditions within each path loop and, therefore, the conditions at the intersections of path loops when the entity passes through their intersections. Man’s current mostly linear computers cannot handle this type of modeling very well, but computers can be designed that can work on the path flow principles with the ability to generate many simultaneous loops and their intersection structures. Since the universe that we experience is composed completely of motions and those motions within it that generate the rules of its operation and the motion flows through it are for the most part cyclical in structure, the cyclical path flow motion structures in these computers can easily model the real world cyclical motion structures in this world.

The other modeling method is called behavioral modeling and is the method that is predominantly used by man at this time. It looks at the output behaviors of the interactions between entities and then tries to develop rules of behavior that would generate the observed behavioral outputs. Although these rules can be expressed in a simple conceptual form, it is generally considered incomplete until it is expressed in complex mathematical form. Since many things in this world are similar in construction to other things and are often connected directly structurally to those things that have been modeled, it is often possible to use the modeling results to extrapolate the behavior of other things not yet modeled and possibly not yet observed. Because the underlying structure is not usually understood, progression by this method is generally more limited due to the lack of connective information that would allow a deeper understanding of what is actually happening.

It works best when these two methods are both used together. To begin with only the interactional observational outputs are available for use when the structure cannot be directly or indirectly observed by man, so it is understandable why behavior modeling is used first to develop a beginning understanding of what is going on. Once an understanding of what behavioral outputs are possible and what their relative probability of occurrence, etc. is gained, it is then time to use that information to determine what underlying structure would generate those results using structural modeling techniques. At this stage it is not necessary that the structural model that is generated is actually true to reality, but only that it can generate all of the observed outputs at the observed probability rates, etc. and does not generate outputs that are contrary to observations. This proposed structure can then be used to predict any new as yet unobserved outputs, etc. and these things can then be looked for to see if they actually can be made to be observed by experiment. Over time, the model will be changed as necessary to explain new observations that disagree with it until it is actually true to reality and fully explains the structure of reality. It is this structural modeling that is currently being greatly neglected by man in this world. The result is that man generally has very little understanding of what a field, an energy photon, or a matter particle is or even could be made of and how they could work internally to produce the observed behavioral outputs and their relative probabilities, etc. This has resulted in the production of many nonsensical concepts, such as time travel into the past or future, the idea that nothing can occur unless and until it is observed, and the idea that matter particles and energy photons can be constructed from nothing for very short times (virtual particles), etc., that require space to have an energy/vacuum pressure level, etc. that is not really required when the underlying structures of these things are understood.

An additional problem that exists today is in the vague structure of man’s current math structures. One problem is that the same abstract figure is used to represent different things in different math expressions. As an example, the figures X, Y, and Z could represent specific dimensional coordinates or just variables with different meanings in different math expressions. One must, therefore, understand the behind the scenes meanings that are applied to the elements of an individual expression. The expression would have no discernible meaning if the expression was read without knowledge of the behind the scenes meanings that have been applied to the various figures that are used in it. Another problem is that a given figure may represent another complete math expression or even a combination of many such expressions. This means that to get a full understanding of the meaning of what looks like a simple math expression, it may be necessary to fully understand a multitude of behind the scenes information structures that are not presented in the math expression. These types of things allow the development of much confusion and error as to the true full meaning of an expression often even among scientists. Much scientific material that is greatly math based presents many math expressions without giving the meanings of the figures that are used in the math expressions, so that the material is only of use to those who are already greatly familiar with the expressions. This greatly hinders the transfer of valid information to those who do not already possess that information. As a simple example, if I give the math expression T = (PX) + P, it would likely mean nothing to anyone unless I also give the information that to me T= total cost, P=price of meal, and X= the tip percentage to be given to the server.

The big difference between modeling based on experimental observations and computer models is that the experimental observations are actually observing reality itself while the computer model is looking at a program that may not have been based on real world observation, but only on someone’s belief of how the real world works. It may be based on generally accepted math structures that abstractly represent some portion of reality, but because of the problems with math mentioned above, the math structure’s meanings may be improperly interpreted. The translation of the math structures into computer programs could also contain errors, which might not be readily apparent. This creates extra layers of complexity that increases the likelihood of errors. The more directly you can work in reality the less likely you will experience errors or misinterpretations in that work. You are right, however, that errors can occur in either method.

It is good that you consider the needs of the student that you desire to teach, but it is not always necessary to support the student. In today’s world it is usually expected that the student will take care of his own needs while he is learning and even pay for the education, at least at the college or university level. God, however, says freely ye have received, so freely give. He doesn’t expect you to pay the student to learn from you or to charge him to do so either. Since any thought or idea that you have that would be good for others to know has been given to you by God and he has not charged you for that information, he expects you to also give it freely to others. He does not say that you must support the student while you are teaching him, however, although that would be a good thing to do if the student needs it and you can afford it. It is good that you see that God is actually in control of if and/or when any information that he gives to you is allowed to be received by any other(s). It is easy to begin to think that if others don’t receive the information that you are trying to give to them it will be lost and no one will ever know it, but if God gives you some certain knowledge he can also give it to anyone else that he desires to receive it. This means that when God gives you any knowledge and you try to teach it to others as he commands you to do, it may be that those that you try to teach it to will not receive or believe it, which could be because he has given it to you only for your benefit of understanding and he uses your teaching to give you more information and understanding about it, or it may be that it is meant that someone will in the future see it and receive it. If you are still in the world at that time, that one may come to you for more knowledge. Of course, it could happen hundreds of years after you have left this world and God may then supply any further information needed directly to that person or provide it from others to whom he has already given that information. Our job in this world is just to give out the knowledge and understandings that God has given to us to others. It is up to him to decide who will receive it and use it, if anyone at all. I have found that any knowledge that God gives me about this world that he created or about him directly helps me to know him better and to know more about him and what he made this world for and how he uses it and what my part is in it, to prepare me for the part that he gives me in the new permanent perfect world that comes after this one is destroyed. The important thing is to continue to learn more from him for your own preparation. This can be directly from him or through others that he gives to you for that purpose.

B. It has always been that those who have the resources control what concepts are considered to be the mainstream accepted theories.

C. I was suggesting that there be a change made, so that all concepts would be treated equally until they prove to be wrong or greatly lacking in accuracy compared to observed reality. New concepts would be evaluated on the basis of whether they agree with observed reality instead of whether they agree with currently accepted mainstream theories. This new part of the scientific structure would be a great departure from the current evaluation structure and would require specially trained people who would have a data base of all scientific experimental observational information as complete as possible available to them to use to evaluate new concepts to compare them for conformance with observed reality. Most of man’s concepts have one or more inconsistencies in them, so it would be necessary to consider both the number and severity of the consistencies in relation to the viability of the overall concept. Once this was done on all current concepts they could then be compared with competing concepts to see which is the most viable in conformance to reality and that one would be the currently most accepted concept, but it would have to be continually reevaluated in the light of new concepts and new experimental observational data.

D. I am glad we agree.

E. Energy can be converted into mass and mass can be converted into energy because they are both just composed of motions. The motions in matter particles that produce their mass effects are just locked up into very small internal cyclical motions so they are not seen as motions by man because man does not yet possess the ability to observe such small things. The same thing goes for the cyclical motion in energy photons that generates their frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects. Although these motions cannot be seen directly by man, they can be observed indirectly. When two matter particles are aimed at each other and their motions are increased to near the speed of light in opposite directions their interaction can create several new matter particles. The total mass of all of the new matter particles can be much more than the rest mass of the original two matter particles. It can be seen that the near the speed of light motion has been converted into the rest mass of the new matter particles and also their new extra kinetic mass effects. This shows that mass and kinetic motion are equivalent to each other or they are the same thing. Such interactions can also create energy photons and all of this experimental observational information has been available for a long time to man, but is generally being ignored.

F. It is not true that the “Dynamic Universe Model is totally based on observed data”, and nothing else. It is based on such things as the upshifting of photons that travel near large gravity objects, etc. that have not yet been observed to actually happen in reality.

G. I am glad we agree here also.

H. I was not talking about you forcing your concepts on others. You do not have that ability even if you desired to do so. I was talking about the ability of others that are more advanced than man in understanding who could look into your mind on a size scale that you could not detect and could observe what you observe through your senses, look at your thoughts and memories and even change them if they desired to do so. They could implant new thoughts in your mind that you would believe to be your own internally generated thoughts. Of course, they could also make themselves known to you in your mind and offer to work with you on an equal basis, so you could advance along with them and work for common goals together, etc. My point is that most people would not want their minds controlled by someone else without their permission, but the ability to do so exists. Of course, God does such things either directly or through others that he allows to do so. Those who love him and are his according to his purpose have the promise that all things will work for good for them, so there is no need to worry about such things. Those who are not God’s, however, do not have that promise.

It is good that you see that all that you have has been given to you by God. Most people are not willing to recognize that. People like to believe that they have complete freedom of choice to think and do what they desire to do. We were not designed to work that way, however. God controls those who are his and he created another to control those who do not choose to have him to rule over them and he gives control of them over to him. The only real choice that we can make is to choose which of the two we choose to rule over us. Those who choose God are slowly changed by him to be as he desires us to be to make us ready to become his body members in the world to come over a period of time called sanctification that varies with each person. That is part of the reason that you will see people who say they are Christians whose behavior ranges from being much like those who do not choose God to rule over them for the beginners to those who are completely in line with what God desires for them to be for those who are completely sanctified. It would be expected that the behavior of those who choose God to rule over them to all tend to develop toward the same behavior according to God’s will, but if we can actually all have complete freedom of choice all who do not choose God should exhibit behaviors that diverge from each other more and more over time. This is not the case, however. Their behavior tends toward complete opposition to God’s expressed desires. Although there is also a range of behavior in those who do not choose God, the trend is to attempt to remove all knowledge and all visible indications of God’s existence from the world, so that all will disbelieve in him and, therefore, will not be able to choose to believe in and to follow God as their ruler. This, of course, amounts to removal of their freedom of choice as to who will rule over them, which they should be against, since they believe that they should have this right to choose, but in reality their desire of freedom to choose only works in the one direction to choose to not have God as their ruler. This is a visible indication that they are all under the control of someone who is actively working against God and is trying to undermine God’s work of creating a body for himself to dwell in. Another visible indication that man is not made to have complete freedom of choice in how he leads his own life is that man invariably always chooses someone to rule over him. Those who believe God choose him and those who don’t believe God, choose a man, since they cannot find any other better than themselves to do it. To me it seems only logical that if I am a man and I can’t properly rule over my own life, it would not be logical to assume that any other man could do any better, since we are all subject to the same physical and mental restrictions. The fact that this happens indicates that man is not made to rule over himself, which is why God made someone else to rule those who don’t want to be ruled by him. Since they generally don’t see and perceive the other one who rules over them they choose a man to do so. In reality, however, their minds and other aspects of their lives are controlled by this other one that God made for that purpose. This gives each man the right to choose who will rule over him. This is the only truly free choice that we have.

I. and J. It is good that we agree here also.

K. It is good that you are a firm believer in God. The only other thing that is needed is to believe in him as he really is and be as he desires for us to be in how we come to him and to know what we are to do in this world and how we are to get prepared for the world to come. We cannot just come to him and serve him as we desire because he has made only one way that we can come into his presence. If we try to do so in some other way, it won’t work. He has done this to separate those who really desire to know him as he is and to do his will from those who just want to get eternal life, but don’t really want to be become joined to him as a member of his body and do his will. A common error that many people make is to believe that God accepts everyone no matter how they come to him and what they believe and do in life. This is usually based on such people’s desire to be god and make God to be their servant to give them all that they desire for him to do for them. Those who treat God in this way are just wasting their time because he will not receive them that way. God’s son Jesus Christ said “I am the way the truth, and the life, no man can come unto the Father (God the Father) but by me.” This means that you can only come to God through his Son Jesus Christ. Just having a belief in God is not enough no matter how firm that belief is. God says “even the devils believe and tremble.”, but the devils are not saved. They have the fear of God and God says “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.”, but God also desires that we love him and he says “perfect love casts out all fear.” The devils never get to the point of loving God in the way that he desires for them to do, so they continue to fear him. Jesus said “if a man loves me he will keep my commandments.” This shows that true love is not just having a feeling of love for God, but also includes the desire and willingness to get to know him as he is and to do his will to please him. God tells us why we can’t come to him directly when he says “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” His ways (purposes and intents) and his thoughts are above our ability to understand, so he communicates with us through his son, who can communicate with both God the father and also with us. That is why he says that there is one mediator between man and God, which is Christ Jesus. That is why I always encourage everyone to read the Christian Old and New Testaments to get to know God in the way that will result in the fullness of the relationship with God that he desires to have with us. The purpose of the Old Testament is to bring us to the knowledge of our need to be saved by Christ and the New Testament gives us the agreement that God is offering to us that allows us to be saved and have eternal life and to become members or parts of the body that he is making for himself to live in when he has brought us into the new world that replaces this one.

L. I think I mentioned that the observation has already been done and gave the Pound Rebka experiment as an example. Although others have also been done, I will leave it up to you if you want to look them up also.

M. I have not had time to look up and see if such an experiment has been done. You could try to Google it, etc.

N. See L. above.

O. Yes that is where I mentioned the Pound Rebka experiment. You are welcome. I mostly get this information from the internet, so you could get it that way also.

P. I already did with the Pound Rebka experiment reference. You can get this and other information by googling it, etc. on the internet.

Your comments of May 22

Q. As I mentioned above, the mass that is being converted into energy in the stars is not the result of conversion of protons into energy photons, but it is the result of the conversion of some of the mass of the protons’ sub-energy fields into energy photons, etc. The upshifting that you propose would produce complete new protons with complete new sub-energy fields. This would reproduce the sub-energy fields, but it would also leave all of the original protons with their decreased sub-energy fields, which would still be stored in the stars joined together in the form of helium atoms. At the same time, the gravity fields of the large gravity objects (mostly stars) would be depleted by transferring some of their field strength into the energy photons to upshift them. I don’t see anything in your theory that would correct these imbalances.

R. In reality any increase in energy that any entity experiences is the result of an energy transfer from another entity that receives an equal decrease in its energy. This is a form of direct communication of energy between entities. This would generate the results of your photon upshifting that is described in Q. above. If you propose some other method of energy conservation that does not automatically conserve the total amount of energy (motion) in the universe that does actually occur with the energy (motion) transfer mechanism that is observed in all of man’s reality observations to date, then there would need to be some way that an increase in energy in one entity would immediately cause an equal decrease in some other entity. If this did not occur, any increase in energy that occurred in an entity would increase the total amount of energy in the universe until an equal decrease actually occurred. If the system was open ended, such that several increases or decreases could possibly occur before an opposite occurrence(s) happened to balanced out the total amount of energy, the total amount of energy would not be conserved, since it would not always remain the same, but would at least fluctuate around some balance point. The only way that absolute energy conservation can be maintained is if any mechanism that creates an increase in energy in the system either automatically creates an equal decrease somewhere else or at least communicates information of the increase directly to whatever other mechanism will cause such an immediate equal decrease in energy, so that the total energy in the whole system always remains the same. If the two mechanisms are separated by any amount of space, that information could only be transferred from the first mechanism to the other mechanism at the speed of light or less. This would generate some amount of time from an energy increase in one place before an equal decrease could be generated in the other mechanism. The result would be a change in the total amount of energy in the system for that time period. Since the total amount of energy would not always remain the same, true energy conservation would not be maintained.

S. It is not necessary that every energy photon / particle will be converted into mass and vice versa. It is only necessary that every energy photon that receives an increase in its energy (motion) content by upshifting or by any other interaction, somehow immediately causes an equal decrease in the energy content of some other entity, so that the universe always contains the same total amount of energy (motion). Any increase in one place must also be accompanied by a simultaneous decrease somewhere in order to maintain the same total amount of energy (motion) in the universe.

T. When an energy photon is transformed into a matter particle there is an energy (motion) transfer that takes place, but it is mostly internal within the energy photon/matter particle. As an example, when an energy photon that contains enough motion within it to produce a matter particle comes within range of an adequate angular motion source it can allow it to transfer some of its motion that generates its frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects into the place within it that generates the cyclical motion transfer from that place into the lower three dimensions, which causes the photon to travel in a curved path that encloses back upon itself to create its cyclical curved angular motion path. The great angular motion generated by that cyclical motion around that curved enclosed motion path creates the static mass effect of the resultant matter particle. Since the photon that is within the matter particle travels repetitively around its enclosed curved motion path, it no longer travels in a straight line as it did when it was just an energy photon. The enclosed path can be stationary in space or it can also travel in some direction in space at any speed up to about the speed of light. This works the same way when a matter particle changes into an energy photon. As an example, since the motion that creates the matter particle’s curved motion path and its static mass effect travels in one direction in a matter particle and in the opposite direction in an antimatter particle, when a matter particle and an antimatter particle interact with each other, the angular motion content that allows motion to pass into the place in the particle that transfers that motion into the lower three dimensions is canceled out. This results in the transfer of that motion back into the place within the matter particle that generates the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects of the photon that is contained in the matter particle. The end result is that the photon’s motion is no longer curved, but travels in a straight line at the speed of light and loses it static mass effect, thus transferring it back into an energy photon. In both cases the motion (energy) is just transferred from one place within the particle to another place in the particle. There is, therefore, a motion (energy) transfer involved, but for the most part it takes place within the particle. The total amount of motion contained within the particle remains essentially the same.

U. Most of the photons emitted by stars do not contain enough motion (energy) within them to make a matter particle like a proton. Your proposed frequency upshifting which would add the needed extra motion (energy) to the photon to allow it to contain enough energy within it to make a proton would add the extra motion that would be required by the photon to allow it to make a proton. This extra energy (motion) would need to be added to the photon from some source that is outside of it. In your example that source could only be the gravitational field of the large gravity source. Once it has received that motion from an external source it can then transfer it internally to the place within it that would convert it into a proton if it also comes close enough to an adequate angular motion source.

V. You are right that the reactions in fission and fusion bombs are the same type of reactions that take place in stars. The chart shown in the reference web page, which I referred you to in my previous comment to you, shows how that works. Any atom that is lower than iron on the chart can conceivably be converted into an atom that is higher up in the chart and in the process it can give off some amount of energy from its sub-energy field, since the resultant atom does not need all of the energy that comes from all of the sub-energy fields of the individual matter particles (when all of those individual sub-energy fields are joined together into a single sub-energy field) to contain the matter particles within the innermost high density sub-energy sphere of the atom. The mass that is converted into energy is what is called the nuclear binding energy and the loss in mass within the atom is that part of the atom’s total mass effect that had been converted into another energy form by the conversion of some of the atom’s sub-energy field into that other form of energy. As mentioned before, for the most part none of the protons or neutrons are converted into other energy forms. Only a part of the atoms sub-energy field is converted from mass effect into other energy forms. There is a binding energy that has to do with the binding of atoms together into molecules, but it is much weaker than the nuclear binding energy.

W. I believe that you are thinking that I am talking about chemical binding energy of atoms into molecules when I am actually referring to nuclear binding energy.

X. I was referring to item 12 in your comment to me on May 1, 2017, where you said “Mostly blue shift happens and as the velocity of light will be high compared to velocity of star. The quantum of blue shifting will be high low at the normal star velocities.

When the star velocities are comparable to that of light then the redshift will be observable.”

Y. Again I think you were thinking that I was referring to chemical binding energy that has to do with the binding of atoms into molecules. I was talking about nuclear binding energy, which is much greater in amplitude or energy.

Z. There may have been a misunderstanding of semantics here. When I use the construct of “matter to energy conversion” I am talking about the conversion of matter particles into energy photons or some other form of energy (motion). You talk about loss of mass, which does not actually say that the loss comes from the conversion of matter particles into other form(s) of energy. Since that loss of mass comes from the transfer of motion from the atom’s sub-energy field particles to an energy photon or due to some other mode of transfer, we are both right. There is a loss of mass effect that occurs due to the loss of some of the atom’s sub-energy field strength, so you are right. At the same time that loss does not for the most part come from conversion of matter particles into other form(s) of energy, so I am also right.

A single proton contains about 60 times as much energy as the amount that is emitted when a helium atom is created by the fusion of 4 protons into a helium atom including all of the interactions that take place in that process. If large scale conversion of protons into other forms of energy did occur in stars, the amount of energy created would not only balance the pull of gravity as actually happens in stars, but would cause the stars to explode much more violently than occurs in a supernova explosion.

Aa. I also do not have access to man’s equipment resources to do experiments and the results of the use of any other resources for that purpose would not be releasable.

Ab. You are welcome.

Ac. Man has been able to create the temperature and pressure conditions on a small scale for some time. An example of this ability is the production of fusion in hydrogen bombs and the production of fission in atomic bombs. The main problem is to maintain the reactions long enough to measure any variations in decay rates, etc. Some elements have very short half-lives, however, so it may be possible to see any variations in them. I have not yet checked to see if any such experiments have as yet been performed by man here.

Ad. You are welcome again. I hope things work out well for you on the land.

Ae. As I have explained already, fusion and fission could not break down the midrange atoms. If you know of some other mechanism that would, please let me know what it is and we can discuss it.

Af. As I explained earlier, it is not in my best interest in the process of testing man’s ability to understand and develop the basic principles and structural models that I am presenting, to give man’s mathematical structures and models to explain them. These things are for man to develop. I have tried to explain the concepts that I have presented as clearly as I can, but you do not appear to understand them and continue to not be able or willing to explain how the photon frequency upshifting results in energy conservation other than by math models that I cannot at this time address. If you understand the meaning of the math model that you are presenting, you should be able to present that meaning in simple language form without the math structure to explain how it is that the total amount of energy is continually conserved in your model. I think that we should both agree that when the energy photons are up shifted, they gain energy from somewhere. I am looking for your conceptual understanding of the structure of the energy photons, of the large gravity object and its gravity field, and how you understand that the energy photons’ energy is increased without increasing the total amount of energy in the universe. For energy conservation to be maintained, any increase in the amount of energy in an energy photon by upshifting or by any other cause must result in an immediate decrease in energy somewhere else so that the total amount of energy in the universe always remains the same. This works automatically under the concept that when an entity’s energy is increased it is always due to its receiving an energy transfer from some other entity, which then contains an equal amount less energy than it possessed before the transfer, as a result of the transfer. In this way the total amount of energy always remains the same. If you believe that this is the way that it works also, then what entity gives up some of its energy to the photon to upshift it? If you don’t believe that it works that way, what is your concept of how it works in simple English and how does it work to upshift the photon’s energy amount and how does it at the same time keep the total amount of energy in the universe constant. If you can’t do that we probably will not be able to work together on that concept.

Ag. Without the use of the math, please explain your theory in simple conceptual terms of how it works to upshift the photons and at the same time also works to maintain the same constant amount of energy in the universe (maintains energy conservation). The math model shows the relationships between the behaviors of the energy photons, the large gravity object, and its gravity field, etc. There is always a structure that exists behind these things and their relationships that generates the observed relationships that are modeled by the math model (how the things are constructed or made, what they are made of, what actions each thing can generate, and how do these actions of the individual things interact together with those of other things to generate the observed behaviors), etc. It is your understanding of this conceptual structural, action abilities, and interactional outcomes that I am interested in receiving from you. It goes beneath and is the basis of the creation of the behaviors and their relationships that the math model describes.

Ah. The table of binding energies of the atoms that was in the web page that I referred you to in my last comment to you shows how that works.

Ai. See Ah. Above.

Aj. I have already given some of man’s data such as the chart that shows that the midrange atoms are the ones that are at the lowest energy levels and that those that are lower in size than them will naturally combine together in stars by fusion to produce them and those that are greater in size will tend to break down into them naturally by fission. It also shows that the midrange atoms can only be changed into the low range or large range atoms by the addition of outside energy to them, which has to come from a source that contains more energy than they possess. It can be determined that most of the energy produced in stars comes from the fusion of protons into helium atoms. Since that energy is freed as a result of that reaction, it is obvious that the helium atoms contain that much less energy than the original protons that went into their production. In order to reverse that reaction and change the helium atoms back into free protons, the same amount of energy that was freed in the fusion process must be added back into the helium atoms to allow the freed protons to have their needed energy and some additional energy must be added to actually cause the separation. This means that it would require more energy to reverse the fusion process than was freed by the fusion process. This could only come from some more powerful energy producing process in the star than the fusion process, but such a process would generally be measurable and the star would exhibit a greater energy output than is observed. Moreover, if the midrange atoms were broken back down into individual protons in the stars, the stars would then be able to fuse them again and would, therefore, never burn out, but could endlessly produce energy by the fusion of protons into helium atoms that would then be broken back down into individual protons again so that they could then be fused again. This is also not according to observation or even your theory. If they are not broken down in the stars, they would build up in the stars and continually increase the amount of midrange atoms in the universe, thus causing the things that I have mentioned several times in other comments. The end result would then be the end of all new star production and when all of the existing stars burned out, there would be no stars in existence. The problem is that you are trying to make things work contrary to the natural entropy flow of energy. Although the energy flow is much greater in nuclear structuring than in molecular structuring, the natural entropy one way flow from higher energy structures to lower energy structures is similar in both. This produces both the entropy averaging and dispersion of energy effects of entropy. As an example, a hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom will naturally combine into a water molecule and also free some energy, but you need to add extra energy to separate a water molecule back into a hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom again. More energy must be added than was freed when the water molecule was created. The higher energy entities give up some of their energy to lower energy entities during interactions. This reduces the energy content of the higher energy entities while at the same time it increases the energy content of the lower energy entities. They all tend to converge on the center of the range of energy content of all of the atoms in the system that they can interact with. Atomic structuring works in a similar way.

Ak. There are many mathematical models that have been made and applied to the universe. The problem is that for the most part they fail in one way or another in their correlation to observed reality. This is generally because those who generate them have a desire to live in a universe that is in some way different than the one that we actually live in. A math model can be made to describe any type of universe that you might desire the true universe to be, but only one math model can completely model the universe to be as it truly is in all respects. Many math models that are not completely true to observed reality can be applied to represent parts of reality that they do model correctly, of course.

You are right that people should not have to live by the sale of their own theory. Those who produce valid contributions to science should be rewarded for their contribution with enough resources to live and do necessary research, etc. The problem is that the current scientific structure does not tend to reward people for their contributions as much as it rewards people for going through certain hoops of training in certain educational channels and production of concepts that reinforce existing scientific beliefs, etc. In that environment it is easy to see why people try to get funds in any way they can. You are finding it very difficult to live without doing such things. It can be much harder for the young in today’s world who may not be able to find any other way to take care of their family. You are to be commended for continuing to make your information free considering your current economic circumstances.

I have already covered why I don’t produce math models.

Al. I understand that your theory holds that black holes do not exist. There may be others that read this post who believe that they do exist, however. Since it is not time yet for me to go into information transfer on that subject, I am maintaining a neutral position at this time. Man still needs a deeper understanding of other concepts to be ready to understand that information. I have already covered that I can’t provide math models, etc. to you, but only basic concepts. I may be able to provide some of man’s observational data on some subjects like I did on the nuclear binding energy last time, if you can’t figure out how to look them up on the internet, but I would need for you to give me the specific area you need information about. I n the interest of peaceful coexistence, I try to not give out information that I know is considered restricted or secret, etc. by man’s governmental structures, but since much of the information that I am giving goes beyond their level of operation and they do not generally publically express what they are working on, I cannot guarantee that some of it would not be restricted if they understood it in detail. I depend on notification from any such organizations if they believe that any of it is such. I also cannot, therefore, give out to you any restricted or secret information that I become aware of in any way either.

Am. I could give man’s data to support everything that I say, but that would make my comments much longer and I assume that you probably already know the data behind much of it, so it would probably be best if you just ask for the data on the things that I mention that man has some information about that I can find on the internet, etc. When it comes to information that I am providing that goes beyond man’s current level of understanding, I can only give you the basic concepts on most of it as I have explained earlier. Of course, my time to look up and supply such information to you is limited, so I can’t guarantee that I can always find the time in a short enough period after your request to satisfy you. I usually give some information as to what things that the information that I give out can help man to understand about some of man’s current observational data, such as explaining why an interaction between two particles can have several possible outcomes and why each outcome has its own specific probability of occurrence that may differ from that of the other possible outcomes, etc. Since I am only giving out basic concepts, however, I may not be able to give the complete method to prove how it can do so. I am only opening up the door. It is for man to go into the next room and gain the information that can be found there.

An. The problem that we have is that you want to describe things to me and have me describe things to you only in a mathematical form and I can only work with you in the form of conceptual structuring. I can describe things to you in conceptual form and work with you when you can do the same to me, but I cannot go into math models, etc. with you for the reasons that I have already expressed previously. One reason that I try to stay away from math models, etc. is that I have found that most people in this world, even those who are well versed in their math model, do not really understand very well what the quantities that are mathematically expressed in their math expressions really mean in terms of the structure and operation of existing entities. As an example, if we look at the expression E=MC^2, most will say that E represents energy, M represents matter or mass, and C represents a constant that for some unknown reason is the same as the speed of light squared, but if I ask what energy or what matter are composed of and why do they act as they do in interactions, etc. I find that most of the time there is very little understanding of such things. Most also have no real understanding of why the constant is needed or why it is equal to the speed of light squared, etc. They may say that observations have shown it to be that way, but observations are the outputs of the underlying structure. It is the understanding of that structure that is needed to answer the hard questions that can then lead to the next deeper level of understanding and integration of knowledge.

Ao. I will try to give references to some of man’s observational data and the understandings that support them, but this will likely greatly increase the time that it will take me to respond to your comments.

Your comment on May 24

I hope everything works well for you to allow for you to take care of yourself and any others that you need to take care of also, if any.

Your comments on June 2

I tried to download the paper that you mentioned in your comment, but it got a 403 error that said “Uhoh. Not authorized

This file or directory is not available for viewing

Your URL may be misspelled, or your link may be incorrect.

Try retyping your URL.”

I tried it several times and checked the spelling each time, but still got the same error. I noticed that you had included an attachment on your comment to David Pinyana, so I loaded that and it looked like it was probably the paper without the graphs and/or charts, etc. that was in the paper that I could not access. I read it, but many of the math expressions were only partially there. They were cut off on the right side, so they were of no use to me. The paper itself was similar to others I had seen before as far as the subject matter that it covered was concerned. There is quite a bit of repetition and detail about what the theory is supposed to show, but very little actual conceptual information is given as to how it works to show those things. As an example, a description is given about how the light from a rotating galaxy that is viewed from its edge would appear blue shifted if you look at the stars that are traveling toward you in their rotation and red shifted if you are looking at the stars that are traveling away from you as part of their rotation. Since all galaxies except for the one that we are in are very far away, you would likely see most of them as so small that the light that you would see from them would be a blend of the light from the stars that are traveling away from you and those that are traveling toward you. You would, therefore, likely see some light with a blue shifted spectru

view post as summary

spectrum and some with a red shifted spectrum coming from the same galaxy. The result is that the observed spectrum would be blurred instead of the very narrow line that one might expect to see if these things are not considered. In fact this is actually what is seen in observations. It is only a blurred line instead of wide variations because the planets generally travel around the galactic...

view entire post

spectrum and some with a red shifted spectrum coming from the same galaxy. The result is that the observed spectrum would be blurred instead of the very narrow line that one might expect to see if these things are not considered. In fact this is actually what is seen in observations. It is only a blurred line instead of wide variations because the planets generally travel around the galactic center at relatively low speeds compared to the speed of light, so the red and blue shifts generated by their motions are relatively small. As an example, the speed of the earth’s travel around the milky way galaxy is estimated to be only about 1/1300 the speed of light or about 143 miles per second compared to light’s travel speed of about 186,000 miles per second. A couple of articles that give some of this information from man’s viewpoint are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_year and https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/red-blue-shifts-and-st
ellar-rotation.242358/. If you could get a good enough resolution to see both edges of the galaxy, you would see red shifted light coming from the side of the galaxy that contained the stars that were traveling away from you and blue shifted light coming from the side that contained the stars that were traveling toward you. All galaxies that were viewed from above or below, so that you could see the whole top side or the whole bottom side would not appear to be blue or red shifted at all. If you were looking at a cluster of galaxies that was rotating in a way that is similar to the way galaxies rotate, so that you were looking at an edge of the cluster it could extend over a wider area of space, so that you could see the red shifted galaxies that were traveling away from you on one side of the edge and see blue shifted galaxies on the other side of the edge of the cluster. If you started at the blue shifted side of the galaxy cluster and moved your sensor along the edge of the cluster toward the red shifted side, you would see the blue shifting become less and less as you proceeded toward the center until it disappeared completely near the center. At the center there would not be any red or blue shifting since the stars would all be moving parallel to you. Then as you moved far enough from the center you would see red shifting that would increase more and more as you moved your sensor toward the red shifted side of the cluster. Again, if you looked at the cluster from the top or bottom, you would not see any shifting at all. This would create red and blue shifted areas in the sky that should be readily detectable. This effect would create an equal amount of both types of areas. Generally there appears to be more red shifting than blue shifting in actual observations. The amount of displacement of the spectral lines is also much greater for this red shifting than is observed for the effects described above. The red shifting seems to be greater with galaxies that are a greater distance away from us than it is for those that are closer to us. Man does not yet understand the existence of sub-energy particles, but their existence readily explains the red shifting increase with distance without the need for Doppler shifting. This is because although energy photons do not usually interact with sub-energy particles, the probability of such interactions is not zero. This means that when an energy photon travels for a long time over a long distance, it becomes probable that such an interaction will occur. Since the energy photon contains much more energy (motion) in it than the amount contained by the sub-energy particle, an interaction between them transfers energy (motion) from the energy photon into the sub-energy particle. This would normally slow the energy photon’s linear motion down to less than the speed of light, but instead the amount of motion needed to maintain the energy photon’s linear motion at the speed of light is transferred into its linear motion from the energy photon’s motion that generates the photon’s frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects. This motion reduction results in a slight reduction in the photon’s frequency causing it to be slightly red shifted. The farther the photon travels, the greater will be the number of such interactions, which results in a greater red shift in the photon. The energy that is transferred to the sub-energy particles can be enough to change some of the sub-energy particles into relatively low frequency energy photons and these photons would over time build up as a background radiation level in space.

I can’t go into detail about it at this time, but the increase in rotational velocities of stars in a galaxy as the distance from the center of the galaxy increases has much to do with large scale sub-energy field structures. It is somewhat similar to the locking of matter particles together in the planet earth, so that they all rotate together even though those near the center of the earth rotate very slowly and may only travel a few inches in a day while the particles near the outside at the equator travel about 24,000 miles each day around the center of the axis of the earth. This is because the particles are bound together by their sub-energy field structures. A similar large scale sub-energy field structure with input and output flow structures can exist in a galaxy. These can be seen as the arms in spiral galaxies. They tend to control the speed of objects rotating in the various sub-energy cylinders in a manner that is somewhat similar to the way that the velocities of electrons are controlled by the motions of the sub-energy particles in the atom’s high density sub-energy spheres. The main difference is that the sub-energy fields in a spiral galaxy are in more of a cylindrical form due to the primarily two dimensional rotation of the galaxy while the three dimensional cyclical motion of a matter particle produces somewhat spherical sub-energy field structures. Barred galaxies are interesting because they are generally composed of two or three dense mass structures linked by their sub-energy field inputs and outputs. In the case of a two mass system, the sub-energy output of one mass is aligned and linked to the input of the other mass. In the case of the three mass structures the output of one of the outside masses is linked to the input of the central mass structure and the output of the central mass is linked to the input of the other outside mass structure. The very strong localized linear sub-energy fields between the masses can create instabilities in the gas clouds that they pass through and thereby can generate many stars in and near their paths. I find it interesting that in the New Testament Scriptures God says “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so they are without excuse. This tells us two very important things. First is that the invisible things can be understood by looking at likenesses of them that are recorded in the things that we can see. The second is that God has recorded in the structure of the world likenesses or images of his own structure, at least as much of it as he has given that we may know about it, in the structure of the world also. I have already mentioned in my other comments on this page that God says that he has three parts, the Father, the son or Word, and the Holy Ghost or body and that the sub-energy fields, the energy photons and the matter particles are images of that structure that are recorded in the creation. The sub-energy particles can exist by themselves as a likeness that God the Father can exist by himself without being joined to any other entity. An energy photon, on the other hand is a composite of a sub-energy particle that gives it its linear motion in some direction and another motion that gives it its frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects. This is a likeness of the Father and the son joined together as one. The matter particle contains a sub-energy particle that gives it its linear motion at the speed of light, which is joined to the motion that gives it its frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects, and an additional motion that continually modifies its linear direction so that it travels in a curved enclosed path instead of a straight line and is also mostly responsible for its static mass effect. When you look closer at matter particles, you can see that there is also a similar three part structure in their composition. First there are particles composed of one part such as the electron (leptons), those composed of two parts called quarks/antiquarks (mesons), and those that are composed of three parts or quarks (baryons). Note that the sub-energy particles and some of the leptons such as the electron are used in the long lasting structures such as atoms that were made. The energy photons and the mesons are generally mainly used as mediators of state transitions or transmissions of motion or information between the long lasting structural elements. The matter particles and within them the baryons such as the protons and neutrons are used as the main backbones of the long lasting structures in the creation. Once you understand these things it is very interesting to me to see that when you look at very large things such as galaxies you can see galaxies with a single central large mass, those with two large masses that are joined together by very large scale sub-energy fields that create a bar of stars in the field between them, and those that also have a third large mass in the middle between the two outer masses with all three of the masses joined together by their sub-energy fields. You can also see the extension of the other side of the outer masses’ fields in the form of the galaxies’ arms. So you have recorded in very large scale objects that can be easily seen by anyone who knows how to make large enough telescopes, images in a two dimensional form of the three dimensional structure of very small objects that cannot yet be seen by man here such as the different types of matter particles, etc. It is just one more of many such examples that what God said is true. Of course two thousand years ago when the scriptures were written man did not have the ability to see such things because the telescope had not yet been invented that would allow them to be seen by man. This is more evidence that the scriptures could not have been written by man. That is all I can tell you about that at this time though. An article that gives some information on what rotational velocities are expected and what velocities are actually observed is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve. Sub-energy field structures also exist between galaxies in a galaxy cluster. An article that gives some information on this is at: https://phys.org/news/2015-03-galaxy-clusters-collidedark-my
stery.html. It shows that in collisions between galaxy clusters, the dark matter in one cluster seems to just pass through the dark matter from the other cluster that it is colliding with. This is, of course, because the sub-energy fields tend to just combine with each other, etc.

In general, the main thing that I find missing from your paper is an explanation of what is happening and how things work to create the output results of the equations from the input conditions that are given as part of the equations. As an example, In the equation E=IR, I can say that E is the electromotive force that pushes the electrons through the circuit, I is the amount of electrons that pass a given point in the circuit in a specific amount of time and R is the resistance to the flow of electrons that is present in the circuit. I can go further and explain that the pressure is the result of a buildup of electrons in an area that repel each other and I could go into the things that together generate the observed resistance to the flow of electrons in the circuit, etc. These kinds of explanations can give an easily understood demonstration of how and why the equations work the way that they do. You did do better than some that I have seen in that at least for some of the equations that you have in the paper you do give meanings of many of the terms in those equations, but for some unknown reason you gave no explanation of the meanings of the letters and other symbols in the linear tensor equation or how they work that you say is the basis of all the equations in your theory.

I have noticed that you talk about X-rays as though they are all blue shifted because of their high frequency. Blue and red shifting are not, however, based on the highness or lowness of the frequency of the photon’s radiation in itself. When heated, each element gives off photons at specific frequencies. In general, the higher the temperature, the higher is the frequency of the photons that are emitted in their specific spectral frequency series distributions. When the spectral frequency bands of an element such as hydrogen are observed, but all of the photon’s frequencies in that spectrum are of lower frequencies than they would normally be, they are said to be red shifted. If they are of higher frequencies than would normally be the case, they are said to be blue shifted. An x-ray that is part of such a spectral series can thus be either red or blue shifted depending on whether its frequency is lower or higher than would normally be the case for that spectral series of emission for that element when it is not Doppler shifted. Of course, it could also have the normal frequencies in that spectral series and would then be neither red nor blue shifted.

The paper says that many current problems are solved, but it does not explain what those problems are and how they are solved by the theory and simulation.

It is good that you see that there is no need for a spatial time dimension. We live in a motion continuum and time is just a method of comparing relative motions, which is only needed because there is a wide range of possible motion amplitudes (speeds) and any given motion can possess any particular motion level within that range. It is also good that you see that matter does not need to be and isn’t generated by or from empty space.

You say that the universe is finite and closed and is not expanding, etc. This means that it must have a specific total size. Can your theory predict what that size is and if so, what is it? In your theory, is there anything at the boundary of the universe that reflects energy photons back into the universe if they get to the boundary or do you just believe that the UGF will somehow bend the path of the photon enough that it will not reach the boundary? If you believe that its path is just bent back by the UGF, do you believe that there is a large empty area around the inside of the boundary that would allow a large distance for the photons to be acted on by the UGF in order to accomplish the needed bending? If not, it would seem possible for a star to be very near the boundary and if it emitted a photon toward the boundary, the photon could pass the boundary before the UGF could bend its path away adequately.

You say that using Newtonian physics your theory can explain most of the cosmological phenomena. This implies that there are some things that it can’t explain. Can you give examples of any such things that it can’t explain?

You say that in your theory there are no collisions, but in the observable universe things of all sizes from matter particles to galaxies, etc. are actually observed to collide with each other. It would seem that your theory does not completely conform to observed reality in this respect.

You say that absolute rest frame of reference is not necessary, but if the universe is finite, then an absolute frame of reference must be possible in relation to its boundaries.

You say that in your model masses when distributed heterogeneously experience repulsive forces resulting from UGF acting upon the particular mass. How does that work?

You say that the universe is an expanding universe with blue shifted galaxies present in it. Then you say it is a closed finite universe. Does this mean that it has a fixed maximum size, but it has not yet reached that size and when it does it will stop expanding and be static in size?

I didn’t go over the sections that covered the graphs because the graphs were not present in the paper. In section 5.6, the first paragraph is just one line long. The third sentence in the second paragraph did not stop and do a carriage return at the end of the column, but continued to print all the way across the page and the end of it was not printed because it would have been beyond the side border of the page.

I would like to see more conceptual details as to how you believe that the universe is constructed that led you to choose the several thousand equations that you say are used in your simulation and how and why they are linked together in the way that they are in your simulation program to produce the results that you obtain by that construction. It should start from a conceptual description of the most basic structures that are present in the universe such as what fields, energy photons, and matter particles are composed of and how they work, both internally and in interactions between them. Then higher level structures such as atoms and molecules can be described. As you go up in complexity of structures you would then be in a good position to understand how galaxies and galaxy clusters, etc. work because you would have followed the path of structuring from the beginning structures from which all things are made through all of the hierarchical structural levels, so that when you get to the top, it all fits together properly.

Your comments on June 6

9. Why do you say that LIGO’s experiments cannot be repeated? Even though the LIGO systems are very large and expensive, it seems to me that another system could be constructed and then run at the same time that the LIGO systems are running to check their accuracy, etc. Once you get out of the size and/or speed range that man can directly observe, you have to design and build mechanisms of one sort or another to allow you to observe such things in an indirect manner. An optical telescope is a designed mechanism that allows man to observe things that are too far away and, therefore, appear too small and with too low a light intensity level for man to be able to directly observe them. A telescope is designed to overcome these problems by the use of well understood fundamental concepts. In an optical telescope, the well-known observational data that shows that light is diffracted when it passes from one medium to another is used to design clear glass lenses with surfaces that are curved in such a way as to create a magnification of the thing that would be too small to see directly. At the same time the well-known observational data that shows that the brightness of an image can be increased by using a larger lens that gathers input light from a larger area and then concentrates it into a smaller image area can be used to make the image bright enough to be observed. The design does not generate the observed output result. It only allows something that already exists to be readily observed. The LIGO interferometer likewise does not generate the observed very small motions that it can detect. It only allows them to be observed by man. Before it went into operation, it was not known that such small motions would actually be observed. The other problem, of course, is that once they were observed the next question is what caused them? Unless a way is devised to trace them back to their source, it is a matter of the interpretation of what is believed to be their source. Currently man desires to believe that they are gravity waves, but this cannot be confirmed without a way to retrace the motions to their original source location of gravity variation.

I already gave you a way that the upshifting could be observed by spectrographically observing light coming from stars that appeared very close to the sun’s position during a total eclipse of the sun so that the light from those stars would pass very close to the sun before it is observed on the earth and then later observing the same stars spectrographically when the earth is between those stars and the sun, so that the light from the stars would not then pass closely by the sun on its way to earth. If the upshifting really exists, the light that passes very close to the sun should be blue shifted by the sun’s gravity field. I was able to observe the total eclipse, but my camera equipment was not good enough to get good pictures of it and I don’t have man’s spectrographic equipment to allow me to analyze it in that way either.

I cannot go into the structure of gravity fields at this time.

10. In Newton’s light photon corpuscular theory does he say what the light photon corpuscle is made or composed of and if so, what is the substance of its composition? His equations may describe the observational behavior of the photon in its external interactions with other entities, but they cannot describe the photon’s internal substance or the way that its internal substance is structured or the internal only operations of that structure. If you know these things, you could, of course, possibly generate math equations that would describe them and you would then have an understanding that would go much deeper and give you the ability to fully understand why his equations that describe the photon’s external interactions work the way that they do.

I believe that the M mass in the equation E=MC^2 usually is only used to describe what is called the static or rest mass of matter particles. It probably could also be used to describe the dynamic mass effect of an energy photon, but I don’t think that it is normally used that way. The dynamic mass effect of an energy photon would likely be considered to be part of its energy based on its frequency and/or wavelength, etc. (part of the E in the equation). In a way you are right that no mass is truly at rest because all mass effects are caused by motions and for the most part they are the resultant output of angular motions. On the other hand, although the energy photon that is contained in the cyclically enclosed curved 3 dimensional path that we call a matter particle is continually traveling around that path at about the speed of light, the total complete path itself can be at rest in relation to the path of another matter particle. This is what is actually being referred to as static or rest mass. If you then apply motion to the path of one of the particles that are at rest in relation to each other, such that the particle’s path begins to move in relation to the other particle’s path, that added motion is called kinetic motion and it also exhibits its own kinetic mass effect. The E the M and the C in the equation all are measurements of motions of one type or another and the equation as a whole is just giving the relationships between those different types of motions.

11. Answered in 10. above.

12. A change in motion does actually occur. It is just a very small change, such that the amount of change due to the upshifting of a single photon would not be measurable. The problem is that every photon emitted from every star would need to be upshifted to have any chance of maintaining the same total number of free protons that could then be fused into new helium atoms. This means that on the average each star would have to upshift as many photons as it emits. The upshifting of so many photons by a star would greatly decrease the star’s gravity field in the same way that the fusion of four protons into a single helium atom would not have a measurable effect in counteracting the pull of gravity of the star to keep the star from contracting, but when a very large number of helium atoms are produced by fusion in a short time it can result in enough total force to create a balance against the force of gravity in the star to stop its contraction. You would actually have to transfer much more energy to the photons during the upshifting than was emitted in the photons that were emitted during the fusion process. Each photon would have to be upshifted to about 63 times the amount of energy that was emitted during the fusion of the four protons into a helium atom. This is because when the four protons are fused into a helium atom less than 60 MEV of energy is emitted in the form of energy photons. Most of the mass energy of the original four protons is still contained in the four particles (two protons and two neutrons) that make up the helium atom. About 2.6 MEV of the energy from the fusion reaction is used to convert two of the protons into neutrons, which are more massive than protons. That energy is, of course, also still tied up in the helium atom. During the fusion of four protons into a helium atom the four protons are locked up in that atom and cannot be used to fuse more helium atoms. Each proton contains about 938 MEV, so four of them together contain 938 X 4 = 3752 MEV. To replace these four protons by upshifting, the about 60 MEV photon that was emitted during the fusion of the helium atom would have to be upshifted to at least 3752 MEV in order to allow it to produce four new protons that could then be fused in a star to keep the process going. 3752 / 60 = about a 63 times increase in energy. All of this energy would have to come from the star’s gravity field. It is easy to see that this would not be sustainable because in a relatively short time the gravity field would be decreased to the point that it would no longer be able to keep the star from exploding due to the energy generated by the fusion process. Your theory is based on the concept that fusion changes the matter into energy photons and then the energy photons are changed back into matter in the upshifting. In reality there is only a very small amount of mass changed into energy photons and that mass does not come from the conversion of protons into energy photons, but it instead comes from a decrease in the external sub-energy field of the helium atom. This is equivalent to a small decrease of about 14 MEV in the external sub-energy field of each of the four particles that make up the nucleus of the atom. The about 938 – 14 = 924 MEV of each of the two protons and about 925 MEV of each of the two neutrons for a total of about 3698 MEV remains in the star in the helium atom that was formed by the fusion process. Over time the helium atoms would build up in the star and get in between the free protons and ultimately prevent the protons from being able to fuse in large enough numbers. The star would then begin to cool down and would no longer be able to counteract the pull of gravity. It would then collapse causing a supernova type explosion. Over time the helium would build up in the universe and would be the element of greatest quantity. Observations show that helium is in reality of low quantity compared to hydrogen, etc. This would only be the case if the universe began fairly recently. This is a simplified example not covering that in large stars the helium could fuse into higher elements up to iron, etc., but the buildup of more and more matter in the universe would take place and ultimately cause all star production and operation to cease.

13. I am not sure what part of your theory that you are referring to here and what prediction it is making that you are talking about here.

14. I also hope that your land purchase works well for you.

15. I am glad that you agree.

16. Your theory is based on motions. I have not yet seen your concepts of the structure and workings of matter particles, energy photons, and fields, etc. Have you developed such concepts and if so, what are they?

17. I am glad that you agree.

18. You seem to understand this very well.

19. If you really understand this you are doing better than most I have seen so far in this world. My papers on this site’s contests give some more details.

20. See 19. above.

21. See 19. above.

22. See 19. above.

23. See 19. above.

24. You are welcome.

25. Thank you.

26. Thank you again.

27. That is right. This means two very important things.

1. When a star fuses the elements up to iron, the fusion process frees more energy than is required to complete the fusion process, so this can aid the star by helping to offset the pull of gravity that is trying to make the star collapse upon itself. If the star tries to fuse iron, however, it must add some of the star’s energy to the reaction to allow it to do so. This works against the star by causing it to cool down by the amount of energy that was drained from it to use to fuse the iron. This breaks the balance between the inward pull of gravity and the temperature expansion from the fusion reaction of the elements lighter than iron. The pull of gravity is then greater than the thermal expansion and the star will then collapse, usually ending in a super nova explosion, etc. that destroys the star.

2. Note that the fusion of protons into a helium atom frees a large amount of energy per nucleon as can be seen on the chart as the large vertical distance from the hydrogen atom to the helium atom while the total energy freed by all of the other fusion reactions that create the other elements up to iron is a much smaller vertical distance. This means that most of a star’s free energy comes from the fusion of protons into helium atoms. Also note that the largest elements sit at about the 7.5 MEV point on the chart. This means that fission of the heavier atoms into lower mass atoms cannot add a lot of free energy to the star either. There is just no source of energy in the star that could produce the amount of energy that would be needed to break the helium atoms back down into individual protons that could then be fused again.

28. I am glad you agree.

29. We both agree to that.

30. I will wait for your contact then.

31. Ok.

32. Thank you.

33. It is good that you agree.

34. Thank you. I hope you get the chance.

To give an idea of the kind of modeling that would be needed, first consider the need to map the positions and the direction of travel at each position of the photon that is contained within a basic matter particle as it travels around its curved, 3 dimensional, enclosed, cyclically repetitive path. A complete map would contain an infinite number of positions, but you would not need to include all of them. This is because observations show that an interaction between two particles that contain high kinetic energy can only yield a given number of possible outcomes. This means that a given interaction outcome occurs in a range of positions with specific relative directions of travel. The range may be a series of consecutive positions and their associated directions or it may be more than one such set of positions. The needed resolution must, therefore, only be adequate to find some of the positions in each range sector. As an example, suppose that an interaction between two matter particles can cause one of four possible outcomes and that the first outcome has a 25 percent probability of occurring, the second outcome has a 50 percent probability of occurrence, the third has a 20 percent occurrence probability and the fourth outcome has a 5 percent probability. If you map these probabilities as continuous segments of the particle’s enclosed path, it would seem that you would only need to divide the path into, let’s say, 40 positions, since that would give you one position for every 2 ½ percent of the path. If each outcome’s path segment is continuous, you would be correct, but suppose that the 5 percent probability segment is actually made up of 5 sub segments that are each 1 percent of the total path size. A 2 ½ percent resolution would not be adequate for that case. It is, therefore, usually best to use the highest resolution that is practical given the availability of resources, etc. Next you must consider that an interaction between 2 matter particles is a joining of their paths either completely or of some amount of partial overlap. During this complete or partial overlap of their structural paths, an intersection of their structural motions that travel their paths may or may not occur. The motions may not intersect, in which case the particles just pass through each other with no interaction taking place. At very high kinetic motions, this can be the most likely outcome. If they do intersect, the possible outcome is greatly determined by their relative angle of intersection. The map of all possible intersection angles is very important to develop to allow understanding the resultant actions that generate the individual possible outcomes.

The other main variable that must be considered is the state or condition of the motion that generates the wave effects of the photons that are traveling in the curved paths of the matter particles at the point of their intersection. This motion travels back and forth in the fourth dimension. It goes from one end of the dimension to the other then interacts with the end of the dimension, which causes its direction to reverse in the fourth dimension, so that it then travels to the other end of the dimension where it interacts with that end causing direction reversal again. This cycle continues as long as any motion is contained in the photon’s fourth dimensional structure. When the fourth dimensional motion is at one end or the other of the fourth dimension, it exists completely outside of our three dimensional world and it, therefore, cannot contribute any angular motion to an interaction between that photon and any other entity that interacts with it. Since most interaction outcomes are the result of angular motion intersections, it is very unlikely that the matter particle will generate any outcomes from an intersection that occurs when the fourth dimensional motion is completely outside of our world. As it begins to travel away from the end of the dimension the motion begins to enter our three dimensional world. At this point the amount of angular motion that it can contribute to an interaction depends on the percentage of it that exists in our world. The maximum motion contribution during an interaction occurs when it is completely in our world. As it travels away from this center position toward the other end of the dimension, the amount of motion that it can contribute to an interaction decreases again until it reaches zero effect when it is at the other end of the dimension. It then repeats the above mentioned effects as it travels in the other direction in the fourth dimension except that any motion that it contributes to an interaction is in the opposite direction. As a result, each point on the map of all possible intersection angles must also contain the map of all possible states of the fourth dimensional motions of both particles involved. Once this is done you can then map all of the positions on that map to the map of all the possible observed outcomes and determine whether there are yet any possible outcomes that have not yet been observed, etc. I have presented this information to you in a map form because it seems that such a form might be easier for you to simulate on man’s current computers. In this way I have presented the other variables in respect to their variable spatial coordinates. You could, of course, choose one of the other variables and tie the others to it, but man is more connected by his vision structure to the spatial structure, so it gives a more easily understood image to present it that way. Your job would be to build the program that would tie all of the variables together, such that any given set of input variables would give an output of the resultant actual outcome that would occur from an interaction that occurred with that set of input variables.

I hope that gives you enough guidance to begin, if you chose to do so. If you need more information you can ask and I will see if I can give it to you.

35. I am glad that you are interested in the work that is required. It is also good that you are interested in the benefits to all man and not just yourself. It is not bad or wrong to hope for and rejoice in receiving recognition if it comes. First it will not likely come unless others come to understand that what you are giving them is of great value to them, so it would be a sign that you are getting through to them with understanding that can then be used both to make life better for all and also to gain further understanding to continue a progression of advancement that will open up many other future paths of advancement. I must admit that part of the reason that I desire to give this information to man is for my own benefit. God says “freely ye have received, freely give” and “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath”. All that we have, whether it be the possessions of this world or knowledge, wisdom, or understanding, comes from and is given to us by God. He may give it to us directly or through others, but it all comes from him. In the parable mentioned above he is talking about those who properly use what they receive from him in the way that he desires them to do as those who have and promises to give them more. Those who hide that which God gives them and don’t use it in the way that he would have them to do are the ones that hath not and he says that he will take away the things that he has given to them. I have found that when I started to give out to others the things that God has given to me to understand, he has given me much more understanding than I had at the beginning. Since I desire and it is pleasurable to me to understand as much about God and his creation as he is willing to share with me, I try to share what he has shown me with others, which has resulted in the provision of a great increase of information to me from God over time. I encourage others to do the same, so they can receive such benefits also. Although it is good that there are benefits to man, I have found that it is best to first do all that you do for God, to please him. Then the other things will follow.

I have come to understand that without God man cannot come to understand God or his creation, but God can and does give understanding to the ones that he chooses to give the understanding to. God has worked out all the concepts of the creation long ago and can give those concepts to us as he chooses.

Thank you. I have tried to give all the information that I could related to your theory the best that I could. I know that in some cases I gave the same information several times, but I tried to give it from somewhat different viewpoints with the hope that if one way may not work another way might be understandable. Of course, only God can truly open up the understanding of things to any of us. Our problem is that we may not be given to know the particular form that he may use with any one person, so I often try to use several different forms.

It is good that you understand that God is the one who causes any true understandings to come to us whether they come into us directly into our minds, through the minds of others, or by observations of things that he sets before us to be observed by us. You are right, therefore, to be thankful to God for providing these things to you. All that I can do is to pass on to you the things that God has given to me, so the work is not mine, but God’s. He has just chosen to pass that information on to you through me. I am not the original source of it. God is the source of all things.

Now that I have read these last comments, it appears to me that you now have come to understand many of the things that I gave in my answers to your previous comments that I answered earlier in this response. It is probably not necessary for you to go over all of those responses that I gave earlier in this long response, but just to cover anything that you need further information about or that you believe I may be wrong about, etc., to make it shorter, so it can be answered quicker.

I finished my project, but then my wife had a total knee replacement operation, so I have been very busy taking care of her for the last two to three months. As a result I slowly went through your comments and answered them a little at a time during that time when I got some time to do it. I chose to wait until I got through all of them to send my response back to you because when I sent a response back on just one of your comments to me, I usually got several comments back, so the amount of comments that I had to answer was just continually increasing. Hopefully with the answers to all of them at one time you can condense it all down to a smaller comment that just covers the most important things that need to be addressed because right now my time is still limited.

I was just about ready to send this comment out to you when a couple of things happened that might put greater limits on my available time to respond to you in the near future. First my wife is going into a new treatment for her cancer that will likely take about six hours per treatment and I want to be with her during her treatments and secondly, I see that there is now a new contest and I would like to enter that with a paper also. Never the less, I will try to answer any comments as quickly as I can. I am not sure if they will still notify you by email of new comments on this contest, so I am putting the comment on both of our pages to make it more likely that you will see it.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

The following is a copy of comments made by Satavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta on his contest page to me. They include the information in the three comments above plus some additional material, so I am answering them both on his page and also here. I am copying them here to have a complete record of all comments having to do with this contest in one place:

Author Satyavarapu Naga...

view entire post

The following is a copy of comments made by Satavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta on his contest page to me. They include the information in the three comments above plus some additional material, so I am answering them both on his page and also here. I am copying them here to have a complete record of all comments having to do with this contest in one place:

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Nov. 3, 2017 @ 07:38 GMT





Dear Paul,

I will post my replies in parts, and post as and when I finish

Your words……………….

Dear Satyavarapu,

Your comment of May 9

1. It is good that you place the true knowledge and understanding of the universe as more important than money.

Reply……………

Thank you sir,

Your words………………

This can, of course, be very difficult if you don’t have enough money to pay for necessary living expenses. For that reason I can have compassion on those who must make the decision as to whether to give in to the currently accepted scientific understandings in order to be accepted by the scientific establishment and get adequate money to live and resources to do their research, etc. or to work elsewhere as you did in the steel plant, etc. and not have access to research facilities to do desired research, but be able to stay true to one’s understandings even when they do not agree with established scientific beliefs.

Reply……………

Yes It was a difficult life for me all the way in my life,

Your words………………

The real problem is not so much in those who are weak and give in, but in a scientific establishment that is structured in such a way as to require such behavior of those who work in the field. I don’t mind challenges to the concepts that I am giving out to others, as long as they come from an honest desire to understand the concepts and determine if they are true and not just to try to undermine their acceptance by others in order to continue to propagate false beliefs in their place.

Reply……………

Yes you are correct,

Your words………………

Since I am just giving out the basic concepts and it is up to others to develop them with math models, etc. as I mentioned in my last comment to you, I can only give supportive information up to a point. Most of the information that I am giving is in accordance with existing observational data.

Reply……………

Yes It should be

Your words………………

It mainly gives explanations of that data at a lower and more detailed level than man’s current science level can do. The causes of such things as the specific multiple outcomes from a given interaction between two matter particles that are possible and the specific probability of each occurring can be explained in a straight forward way in terms of the motions involved and their specific positioning or relative phasing at the point of interaction, etc.

Reply……………

Yes

Your words………………

It is not necessary to find the actual start of a gravity field to observe the effect that I mentioned of an increase in energy as one travels toward a large mass and an equal decrease as one travels away from the field. You can pick any convenient distance from the large gravity field’s center of gravity and record the test object’s energy level at that point. You then record it again at its closest point to the center of gravity that it arrives at during its approach. Next you let it travel a distance in its travel away from the center of gravity that is equal to the distance that it traveled from your original chosen starting point distance from the center of gravity to the closest point in its travel and then record its energy at that point. The recorded data should show that the object has the same amount of energy at both the beginning and ending points and a greater amount of energy at the closest point. You could then logically extend the beginning and ending points out to any equal distance and expect that they will remain equal in energy.

Reply……………

Yes , ok,

Your words………………

Of course, it would be wise to check it at several different equal distances from the closest point to the center of gravity to be sure that it checks out.

Reply……………

Why equal distances?

Your words………………

If the objects path brings it close enough to any other large gravity force to produce a measurable effect on the object, then that effect would also need to be factored in to the measured results, of course. Although the UGF would have some effects on the experiment, if the large gravity field object was chosen, such that there were no other large gravity objects within several light years, the UGF effect would likely be too small to measure, since they decrease by the square of the distance.

Reply……………

But there will be some effect, don’t neglect here it self, calculate and neglect…

Your words………………

The starting and ending points of the experiment could be chosen close enough to the center of gravity of the large gravity object, so that the field strength of the gravity field would be strong enough throughout the distance traveled during the experiment to overpower any weak gravity effect from far away UGF objects. If you are looking for absolute distances, however, it depends on the age of the large gravity object and the speed of propagation of the gravity field. As an example, if a star like the sun is about four and one half billion years old and if the gravity field propagates or travels at the speed of light, then the beginning or ending of the field would be about four and one half billion light years from the center of the star. This would, of course, have to be adjusted to account for the motion of the star as a whole during the four and one half billion years. There would be other variables, but that would be a simplified example with enough detail to make it clear that each object’s gravity field only extends so far. It shows something that most people never consider. This means that if you look at a galaxy that is eight billion light years away, you cannot see any stars in it that are less than eight billion years old because the light from them could not have reached the earth yet. This means that if you wanted to look for other stars that came into being four and one half billion years ago, you could only find them in galaxies that are four and one half billion light years away or closer. If you look at the galaxy that is eight billion light years away, you might see stars that appear to be only four and one half billion years old, but since it took eight billion years for that light to reach us, the actual current age of the star would be twelve and one half billion years, so it very well might have burned out by now.

I generally don’t give math equations because generally I find man’s math to be too vague in its presentation to be easily understandable by most people, especially advanced math. You will have to generate the math yourself if you can’t understand the information that I am giving in English language form. I believe I gave it clear enough that its understanding should be obvious.

Reply……………

Here you are confusing…

Your words………………

You are right that the gravity field of any object that is old enough and close enough to have reached the path of the test object would have some effect on the test. The farther away the object is and the smaller that its gravity field is the less would be the effect that it would have on the test. This means that most objects even those with large gravity fields that are billions of light years away would not likely measurably affect the test results because their gravity fields would be too dissipated by their great distances and small objects with small gravity fields would have to be much closer to cause measurable effects on the test results. You are right that the moon even though its gravity field is small can affect the tides on earth, but at the same time the other planets only have very small effects on the tides on earth even though their masses are much greater than he moon’s. This shows how much distance can affect the ability of a given gravity field to make measurable effects.

Reply……………

Yes

Your words………………

Although most of the hydrogen in the universe would have been created very early in the formation of the universe, the instabilities in the density of the hydrogen that would allow stars to ultimately form and the galaxies that would then form from the stars, etc. would develop over a very long time.

Reply……………

No not at the beginning, it is being created continually…. It will be crazy to think all Hydrogen created at the beginning… Then what happens to Hydrogen being produced

Your words………………

This means that the continual increase in the formation of new stars and galaxies will go on for a very long time as new instabilities gradually form until a saturation point is achieved where most of the hydrogen is used up in the universe. The formation of new galaxies will then continually decrease in number per unit of time until there is no longer enough free hydrogen left to generate any more new galaxies. Since a large portion of the universe still does not contain galaxies, the process of formation of new stars and galaxies will still go on for a very long time before all of the hydrogen is used up.

Reply……………

There is no evidence that there is large amount of Hydrogen is there in the Universe

Thank you once again

Best

=snp

view post as summary





Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Nov. 3, 2017 @ 01:17 GMT





Dear Paul,

Thank you for your interest in my work and you took time to reply even after 10 months....

I will link and go thro' your posts and reply you ASAP,

Thank you once again,

Best

=snp





Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Nov. 3, 2017 @ 07:44 GMT





Dear Paul,

If you are interested in getting equations for your theory, you may directly tell me what is your offer of money..... to my mail Id or here

Mean while I will reply all your quarries one by one ,in my own way...

Best





Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Nov. 3, 2017 @ 07:52 GMT





Dear Paul,

Please discuss your theory in full, instead saying i discussed there or here... It will be confusing to co-relate ...

Best

=snp





Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Nov. 5, 2017 @ 05:18 GMT





Dear Paul,

What ever you said, I was trying read again,

Some more comments please...

1. In Dynamic universe model the present state is always depends past state, the the time between these two states (time step) is variable and you can fix it according to your needs

2. you will be the first author and I will be second author....

etc....

Hoping this will be ok for you...

Best

=snp

view post as summary

Dear Satyavarapu,

Your first comment of Nov. 3

1. You are welcome.

I can understand how that can work. When I was young we didn’t always have enough good food to eat resulting in bloating, etc. and in some winters we did without heating because we couldn’t afford to pay the electric bill, etc., but thanks be to God we are both still here. In retirement we have enough to...

view entire post

Dear Satyavarapu,

Your first comment of Nov. 3

1. You are welcome.

I can understand how that can work. When I was young we didn’t always have enough good food to eat resulting in bloating, etc. and in some winters we did without heating because we couldn’t afford to pay the electric bill, etc., but thanks be to God we are both still here. In retirement we have enough to live off of, but I don’t get enough to use for much research, etc. It is interesting to contemplate how much more might have been accomplished with a complete life’s work in the field. That is one of the problems of the secret science system in that it only gets useful productive output from a small proportion of all of those who could add valuable new scientific input. When you couple that with the additional limiting of valuable input from all of those who don’t have the opportunity to get the accepted educational degree requirements in the open scientific community, the cumulative result is a very slow progression in scientific development in comparison to what would be expected in a completely open scientific community with free expression and evaluation of all expressed concepts.

It is good that we agree on that.

I am glad that you agree here also.

Good. Not only does this get around much of the vague quantum gibberish, it also explains what such things as fields are made of and allows a more detailed understanding of how they work.

Good.

If the photon starts at point A and travels to its closest point toward the object at point B and then travels the same distance away from the object that it traveled toward it to point C and energy measurements are taken at all three points, then, if the amount of increase in energy in the photon per unit of distance when it is traveling toward the large gravity object is equal to the amount of decrease in energy in the photon per unit of distance when the photon is traveling away from the large gravity object (A=C), then if you measure equal distances in both directions the readings will be the same value when you measure at the beginning of the travel toward the object (A) and measure again after it travels first a given distance toward the object (B) which would increase the photon’s energy and then travels an equal distance away from it (C) again so that it would be back at the same distance from the large gravity object that it was at just before it began its measured movement toward the object. On the other hand if the Photon’s energy is upshifted during its approach toward the large gravity object, but is not down shifted as much when it travels away from the object, then the third reading would be greater by the amount of the difference. The reading at the closest point in its travel toward the object (B) should be the maximum up shifting value. If it is equal to the reading at the end measurement in its travel away from the object (C), then there would be no down shifting. If it equal to the first reading that was taken before it began to travel the measured distance toward the object, then there would be no upshifting, etc. If B is greater than A and B is greater than C and C is greater than A, then there would be some upshifting followed by a smaller amount of down shifting, etc. By using equal distances in both directions you would not need to compensate for the difference in the increase or decrease in energy in the photon per unit of distance traveled when comparing measurements.

You could synchronize several gravity sensors, so that they would take simultaneous readings and send them to a central display and position them all around the large gravity object in all directions all at the same distance from it to check for external UGF gravity effects. Since the display point would not likely be equal distant from all of the sensors, each reading should send a reading number along with the reading data so that the display would display all readings with the same reading number at the same time even though the difference in distances could cause some readings to be delayed compared to others. You could then adjust for any observable variations in the gravity field due to the UGF.

In the first part I was pointing out that the closer to the center of gravity of the large gravity object that you make the measurements for the upshifting, the greater will be the field strength in the measurements while at the same time the UGF effects will likely remain the same. The result would be that the UGF effects would be a much smaller percentage of the field strength measurements. As an example, if the UGF effects were only one trillionth of the amplitude of the field strength measured, it might be too small to be measured. On the other hand, if the measurements were taken much farther from the center of gravity of the large gravity object, the amplitude of the field strength measured would be much less. At the same time the UGF effects would be about the same. This would make the UGF effects a larger percentage of the total field strength measured, so it would be more likely to materially distort the measurement results. In the second part I was pointing out that the UGF effects at any point in space would not include effects from the whole universe, but only effects from entities that were close enough to that point to allow their gravity field to have expanded to that point since the time of their creation. As an example if a star came into existence four billion years ago, but it is located four and one half billion light years away from the point, it would have no effect on the UGF at that point because its gravity wave would not yet have been able to travel to that point.

Good.

The current range of the number of hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter given in most of man’s papers that I have seen is between .1 and 1000 with the average at 1 atom per cubic centimeter in interstellar space. One such example is given at https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml. This sounds like a small amount, but considering how large space is, it is a very large amount. It can still form new stars for a long time. So far the only mechanism of production of large numbers of new hydrogen atoms that you have given is by photon upshifting and that is still only a hypothesis with no present observational evidence to back it up that I have seen. The idea that most of the hydrogen was created near the beginning of the creation is only crazy if you believe that the universe always existed as it is now. On the other hand, if it was created, it makes sense that when it was very hot, only sub-energy fields would exis